B.A. (Hons.

) Political Science Semester-VI

Core Course
Paper-XIV : Indian Political Thought-II
Study Material : Unit 1-11

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi

Editors : Dr. Mangal Deo

Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Department of Political Science
 Graduate Course

Paper-XIV : Indian Political Thought-II

Contents
Pg. No.
Unit-1 : Introduction to Modern Indian Political Thought Dr. Nishant Kumar/ 01
Narayan Roy
Unit-2 : Raja Rammohan Roy: Rigths Anju 14
Unit-3 : Pandita Ramabai Dr. Smita Agarwal 28
Unit-4 : Vivekananda: Ideal Society Anju 38
Unit-5 : Gandhi: Swaraj Manish Kumar 52
Unit-6 : B. R. Ambedkar Dr. Nishant Kumar 63
Unit-7 : Tagore critique of Nationalism Nitesh Rai 78
Unit-8 : Muhammed Iqbal: Community Dr. Prashant Barthwal/Dharmendra Kumar 89
Unit-9 : Nationalism of V.D. Savarkar Sheshmanee Sahu 102
Unit-10 : Nehru: Secularism Dr. Deepika 114
Unit-11 : Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Dr. Nishant Yadav 125

Edited by:
Dr. Mangal Deo
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-1

Introduction to Modern Indian Political Thought

Dr. Nishant Kumar/Narayan Roy

1. Structure
1.1 Introduction
1.2 What is ‘Modern’ in Modern Political Thought
1.3 Indian and Western political thought compared
1.4 Context of Emergence of Modern Indian Political Thought
1.5 Major Themes of Modern Indian Political Thought
1.6 Significance of studying modern Indian thinker
1.7 Conclusion
1.8 Practice Questions
1.9 Suggested Readings

1.1 Introduction
Few decades ago, the word philosophy was considered synonymous with Western
Philosophy. It reflected philosophical writings having a very structured and argumentative
form which emerged in the west, beginning from Ancient Greece. Overtime it was claimed
that this understanding reflected ‘Eurocentrism’ and hence only partial understanding of
human intellectual evolution. On the contrary, it was argued that wherever human beings
have lived, they have reflected and interacted on the questions related to the existence of
human life and goal of human life, questions like what is ideal nature of the society, what is
ideal way to govern a society, what is to be considered as just and unjust etc. Thus, it was
held that philosophical thinking began centuries ago and that it did was not a monopoly of
any particular region or way of thinking. However, it was equally true that the mode of
expression evolved overtime and it was not the same as in ancient times.
In India, we can easily find the roots of political philosophy in the works like
Mahabharata, Manusmriti, Kautilya’s Arthasastra. This trend of philosophy continued for
many centuries, but with the arrival of British as colonial power it took a new turn. Indian
thinker of that time came in touch with the western ideas and philosophy, which impacted
their ideas, their thinking and thought process. Due to significant impact of Western political
tradition, a new and modern trend emerged in Indian political philosophy during 19th and 20th
century. This new trend went in two directions, some thinkers of that time accepted the logic
and validity of the western ideas and we can easily see western essence in their writings and
speeches. On the other hand, many other modern Indian thinkers traced the roots of these new

1
introduced western ideas like liberty, equality, social harmony and created the map of India’s
future on basis of traditional knowledge that was embedded in ancient Indian Granth and
Upanishadas.
Indian thinkers of the period like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma
Gandhi, M.N. Roy, Rabindranath Tagore, Aurobindo Ghosh, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Pt.
Nehru, either through their writings or speech or both, tried to bring reforms in traditions and
related customs and beliefs those were considered inhumane and threat to the project of
creating modern India. Simultaneously, they also tried to give an Indian face to western ideas
and proposed ideals and framework of India’s future political system, like Nehru did in
Discovery of India and Gandhi in India of My Dreams. There were many aspects in this
approach that was different from both Ancient philosophy as well as Modern Western
Philosophy.
1.2 What is ‘Modern’ in Modern Political Thought
The word ‘Modern’ in Modern Indian Political Thought does not reflect an epistemological
meaning as it generally does. In western lexicon, ‘Modern’ knowledge corresponds to a
particular meaning, where modernity was seen as a gift of scientific and enlightenment-based
movements. Knowledge in this framework was considered to be meaningful only if it
conformed to the epistemology of science, that is if you want to claim something as
knowledge it should be have emerged from the process of observation, experimentation and
confirmation. This Modern epistemic frame of knowledge became the base of differentiation
between Classical and Modern Western political thought, which also reflected a rejection and
replacement of the classical. However, the same might not be true about Indian Political
Thought.
Actually, the word ‘Modern’ in Modern Indian Political Thought represents the time, the
time of India’s struggle for its independence. During this period of time certain set of ideas
were produced by our leaders those were leading the struggle. These leaders crossed the
constructed boundaries of thought and produced new ideas about many political subjects like
state, freedom, equality, social justice, ideal system of governance suitable for India and
many more. On one hand, these leaders challenged the dominant perspective of the west by
constructing or producing such new ideas and on the other hand they, by using their
capability of leadership, made these new ideas like social justice, freedom, equality, fraternity
popular among masses. These new perspectives which challenged the western ideas, together,
constitutes what we call Modern Indian Political Thought. Thus, it can be said that the origin
of modern Indian political thought lies in the responses of Indian intellectuals to the processes
of colonization and modernization of their society under British rule, which can be
understood as a response to colonial modernity.
1.3 Indian and Western Political Thought Compared
To have a clear understanding of modern Indian political thought, we need to have
knowledge about the differences between Indian and Western political thought. However,

2
before entering this discourse we also need to understand what is ‘western’? Generally, the
word is used in India to denote anything that belongs to Europe or America. But the problem
with such generalized use is that it assumes that there is some homogeneity in the socio-
cultural patterns of these societies. But it is not so. If we take the example of advent of
modernity and the rise of enlightenment movement in these societies, we find that even
within Europe, different societies were responding to it differently. For example, the English
Enlightenment was very different from Scottish Enlightenment or French Enlightenment
movements and had differing repercussions on these societies. Also, the social values
celebrated in American society is much different than in England. So, there is no
homogeneity in the socio-cultural pattern exhibited by these societies. Yet, for a long time in
India the use of ‘west’ as a homogenous category has not only become a common parlance
but also gained popularity. During colonialism, the use of this category also helped in the
process of ‘self-identification’. By treating west as a homogenous category, the nationalists
tried to project it in binary terms to what was Eastern or Indian in particular. As most of the
colonizing forces belonged to west (Europe in particular like France, Portugal, Spain and
Britain etc.), this categorization easily found buyers in different colonized societies. The
categorization helped the nationalists to claim a self-identity for nation in socio-cultural way
by claiming that it represented what was right and good against the ‘west’ that represented all
that was negative and often against the values celebrated by East. West therefore became the
obvious ‘other’ which was used to assert the self-identity and difference of Indian nation and
its culture. Now let us see in what broad ways is the Modern Indian Political Thought
different from Western Political thought.
1. As we have discussed earlier, the word ‘modern’ in west was used to show
epistemological difference between new and previous knowledges. On the basis of this
new modern framework of knowledge, western thinkers and intellectuals, established
the hegemony of the knowledge system developed primarily in the post enlightenment
period with an emphasis on scientific methodology. The dominance of this
methodology was so regressive that it branded any idea developed at other places as
outdated and worthy of rejection if it did not conform to their standards. Under
colonialism, the intellectuals from west, including many Indologists, did the same with
Indian knowledge systems. On the contrary, modern Indian intellectual system
unapologetically used the resources which were primarily indigenous to develop their
philosophy. So, the idea of rejection or refutation was not the focus, rather they
focussed on revisiting the ancient tradition and rebuilding it to suit the changed context.
A great of example of this is philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, which formed the basis of
political philosophy of many modern Indian thinkers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Swami
Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Aurobindo Gosh, and Tagore. Similarly, Samakhya
philosophy had deep influence on the political philosophy of Bankimchandra.
2. Second difference between Indian and western political thought lies in their evolution
process, which had impacted the nature of both. Evolution process of western
philosophy is linear, which started with Reformation (movement in which established
3
 western doctrines were rediscovered during the age 16th century in west) followed by
Renaissance (the transitional era in Western history during which medieval times
metamorphosed into the modern era), Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. The
Indian tradition of thought, the evolution happened by dialogue and interaction among
many different traditions and cultures. In modern Indian political ideas, we can easily
find impacts of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. at the same time, traces of western
modernity were carried by its colonizers and the process of colonialism itself became an
important site of contestations and reformulations within Indian philosophy.
3. Another difference between Indian and western Tradition of political thought is based
on how they see individual as a being. In western tradition, there is Mind-Body Duality,
where mind denotes thinking or rational capacity of individual and body denotes the
physical being and its material experiences. This duality is reflected most prominently
in the Cartesian system of Descartes, which forms the framework of dominant form of
thinking in the west. In Indian tradition of philosophy, the understanding of this relation
was quite different. Indian thinker believed that there are three aspects of individual:
mind (thinking faculty of individual), body (physical being of individual) and soul
(Atman) and the relation between all the three aspects of individual was believed to be
based on autonomous interaction. Also, the emphasis on atman as the true self was
unique to Indian form of thinking.
4. In modern western thought, the idea of rights is central, whereas in Indian modern
political thought we see the paradox of rights vs duty as central to the discourse. The
centrality of rights in western discourse was based on an atomistic or at least an
autonomous understanding of individual derived from an understanding the individuals
are rational and the best judges of their good and bad and hence should be free in their
choices. In India, since the ancient times idea of dharma has been an essential part of
social system. Here the word dharma is not equivalent to the word religion. Dharma
denotes the meaning of duty, a duty which one have to full fill toward other being and
society. This idea of dharma emanates from a communitarian or at least a collective
vision of individual, where individual is seen as integrally attached to others in society
and its existence is never atomistic in nature. The idea of samaj and samudaya among
many others, constantly reflect such understanding. Gandhi’s vision of oceanic circle is
an explicit example in this regard.
1.4 Context of Emergence of Modern Indian Political Thought
Earlier we discussed that it is the context which distinguishes modern Indian political thought
from ancient politico-social ideas, thus the need arises to understand the context in which it
emerged. In this reference, we need to understand: (a) impact of colonialism on Indian minds;
(b) the response of Indians towards orientalist construction of idea of India and (c) debate
regarding continuing tradition or breaking ties from the past.

4
Colonialism and its impact on Indian minds: Almost all the thinkers, those are categorised
as modern Indian thinker, synthesised and produced their ideas during the colonial period of
India. It is well known fact that British rule used education as means to achieve its end of
creating a class (of Indian people) which physically appeared to be Indian but mentally which
was in sync with colonial powers. Britisher tried to colonize the Indian minds, by
implementing the western English education model based on western ideals and thought. A
popular example of it is Macaulay minutes 1835 which sought to establish the need to impart
English education system to Indian natives. The cultural dominance asserted by the
colonizers was largely successful in creating self-doubt in the minds of Indians many of
whom became sceptic about the relevance of their cultural and social aspects. The constant
criticism and name calling of the cultural practices, branding them as barbaric had a deep
influence on Indian psyche.
However, it is equally true that the same process of colonialism that became the reason for
humiliation became the source for preparing a counter attack. The education which was
aimed to cement colonial cultural dominance, became the weapon to challenge and threaten
the dominance of the colonizers in their own turf. Indians became more aware of concepts
like liberty, rights, equality and used it as trope to expose the dubiousness of British rule in
India. They realized how, on one hand, the western ideas talk about liberty and right of
individual but on other hand, they are abstaining native Indians from exercising these rights.
One way of understanding this dilemma and the native response has been theorized by Partha
Chatterjee who uses the binary of ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ conflict among the nationalist
visualization. Chatterjee argues that in response to colonial modernity, the nationalists on the
one hand were ready to accept and negotiate on subjects that concerned public/outer/political
sphere, as in the case of rights and political representation. But at the same time on subjects
concerning inner sphere like spiritual or cultural aspects they were not ready to compromise
with the values and principles that were central to their identity. This is reflected in the
protests against the reform bills like Age of Consent Bill among others.
Response against colonial efforts to colonize Indian minds had several dimensions. Indians
were not static or passive beings waiting to be moulded according to the British wish.
Colonial modernity had the most pressing influence and as the attack on Indian identity
continued the natives responded in different ways. Their response can be broadly categorized
as one of the following: submission, reform, or revivalism.
Submission: Submission in relation to the impact of colonial modernity meant that many
Indians of that time accepted the appeal of western modern ideas. They became cynical about
the social values and cultural practices of India and believed that the only way to change
things was through adoption of what the west had on offer. They believed that ideas of west
(like separation of power, constitutionalism, etc.) and western scientific education can be of
more importance in building new India. Thinkers of this category favoured imitative
reproduction of knowledge and worked aggressively for its adoption and replacement of
socio-cultural practices that were contrary to this ideation.

5
Reform: The difference between submission and reform was that, under submission claims
of western supremacy was accepted uncritically, but in contrary to this, reformist Indian
thinker opted to do Indianization of the western ideas, by combining them with native ideas.
Thinkers of this category, avoided narrow approach of studying ideas by creating binaries
like indigenous and foreign, modern and tradition, and opted for method of dialogue between
tradition and modern, indigenous and western. Thinkers like Rajaram Mohan Roy,
Vivekananda, Gandhi and many others had accepted the importance of wester ideas, but they
defined these ideas from a new lens. This new perspective can be seen if we see how our
leaders defined secularism, nationalism, and the role of state. Western criticism was used as a
mirror to root out elements within our culture and society that were considered negative and
thereby introducing incremental changes to root it out.
Revival: Against oriental construction of idea of India, some Indian intellectuals responded
by focusing on revival of Indian native ideas and knowledge. Such a take was taken by K C
Bhattacharya, when he argued about establishing Swaraj in Ideas, a cognitive independence
from western ideas. Thinkers of this category were focused on redefining the knowledge and
ideas presented in Upnishadas and Ancient texts. Another explicit example of this was the
approach of Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati whereby he gave the call of
going back to Vedas. They tried to show how these ideas, which are tagged as tradition by
West, are relevant in modern times and needed to be revived in its pure form. It also included
an uncritical and unapologetic glorification of India’s past.
One other thing that we need to understand is the debate about question of continuity of
tradition or break from past. In ideas of many thinkers like Ambedkar, Nehru, Lohia we
can see a kind of substantial break from the tradition or Indian past. In modern new context
these thinkers produced such ideas in which we can see a departure from medieval and
ancient tradition of Indian political thought. Whereas in the works of thinkers like Aurobindo
Ghosh, Rabindranath Tagore and also Gandhi, we can explicitly see the continuity of
tradition. Some political thought experts have argued that neither the conception of continuity
nor the conception of break from tradition is completely true about Indian political thought,
rather the evolution of modern Indian political thought follows pattern of continuity with
change.
1.5 Major Themes of Modern Indian Political Thought
As we all know, Britishers with them brought a system of colonialism, under which there
only goal was to have political control over India and to uses its resources for the growth and
prosperity of Britain. Many years after, as time passed, many of our people came to realize
this harsh truth. They started struggle for their right to have a dignified life. Initially, during
the period of colonization of India, Britishers limited themselves to economic and political
sphere, but later on they also started bringing western culture in Indian society, through
education and other means. To achieve this objective, they started producing knowledge
about India, which could be understood in terms of Edward Said’s theory of ‘Orientalism’.
Due to this step of Britishers and Indian response to this orientalist construction of

6
knowledge, many ideas like swaraj, swadeshi, nationalism, revolution, democracy, nation
building, liberalism, socialism, constitutionalism, secularism, satyagraha, relation of politics
with ethics and religion, power and its decentralisation, social transformation and
emancipation of individual, and social justice, gender justice etc. emerged in the discourse of
Indian struggle of independence. These ideas become the basis of writings and speech of
various of our leader and intellectuals of modern India and so thus, these ideas are regarded
as themes of modern Indian political thought. Let’s try to understand these themes, with little
discussion on them.
 ‘Preservation by Reconstruction’: One of the crucial aspects reflected in the ideas of
Modern Indian Political Thinkers was what Dennis Dalton has called preservation by
reconstruction’. These Indian thinkers primarily used indigenous sources to develop
their ideas. However, they did not conform to the same interpretation as in Ancient or
Medieval times. Conscious of the changed context, particularly of colonialism these
thinkers interpreted classical philosophy according to the need of the time to regenerate
Indian minds and inspire them to contribute in the nationalist movement. For example,
the philosophy of Bhagawad Gita was reinterpreted by Vivekanand, Tilak, Aurobindo,
Savarkar and Gandhi in different ways to act as inspiration for Indian masses to oust the
British and establish swaraj. Similarly, Adwaita Vedanta of Adi Sankara was reinvented
by Rammohan Roy, Vivekanand, Tagore and Aurobindo among others to shed its
emphasis on sanyasa and rather use it creatively as a philosophy for spiritual equality of
all beings and hence to form basis for unity and fraternity.
 Relationship between Individual and Society: Most thinkers of modern India
believed that the idea of liberty, harmony and equality were interconnected. When we,
enjoy our liberty, at par with other, it itself creates a harmonious interconnection among
all individuals of the society. In ancient times, in India, the ideal social system was that
which followed the principles of Varna and Ashram system. It was commonly believed
that by fulfilling one's personal and social obligations on the basis of these system one
could achieve the goals of life, whether it is the goals are spiritual or materialistic. The
system based on varna and ashram was believed as ideal system because it only not
contributed to the personal spiritual upliftment of human being but it also contributed in
maintaining social harmony.
Modern Indian intellectuals like Vivekananda, Gandhi and Aurobindo and Tagore
etc.opined that individual and society were harmoniously connected. Therefore they
forwarded ideas like sarvamukti or Sarvodaya that emphasized on a collective
experience of freedom and progress. The inspiration from Adwaita philosophy was
explicit in their ideas where they advocated spiritual connectedness and oneness of all
beings. What was common in their view is that they all believed, it is not the state but
the society or samaj which created such an environment in which all the individual gets
opportunity of social harmony and can attain spiritual independence. All of them
recognized that when a person discharges his/her social responsibilities, without any

7
 compromise, it promotes social cooperation and harmony rather than competition.
Considering liberty and harmony as the basis of the relationship between the individual
and society, Aurobindo Ghosh held the belief that one person is the seeker of his
spiritual freedom and on the other hand seeks to maintain his group by understanding
and relation in society. Vivekananda tried to establish a link between the western
concept of political and social independence with the concept of traditional Indian
concept of individual and society. The philosophy of Advaita Vedanta was the basis of
Vivekananda’s several ideas. According to this philosophy each and every person is
Divyansh (part of the divine) and because we all have part of divine within us, we all
are equal. On basis of the Advaita Vedanta, Vivekananda advocated that there must be a
social and political equality among each of. Likewise, the basis of Gandhi’s objections
regarding custom of Untouchability was the presence the divine within us. Even on the
basis of this idea, Gandhi called the untouchable people Harijana. Gandhi did not agree
to the claims that the Indian social system based on the Varna is the reason of social
inequality and dominance of one over other. He believed that the Varna system was just
a framework of social division of labour.
 Relationship between Human and Nature: Modern Indian political thinker did not
only advocate a harmonious relationship between all individuals in society, but also
emphasized on the harmonious relation between human beings and nature. This is
explicated most cogently in Deendayal Upadhyaya’s idea of Integral Humanism. The
relationship between man and nature is also emphasized by thinkers like Tagore and
Gandhi who promote rejection of materialist culture and its replacement with spiritual
unity of human with nature and environment.
 State: In the West, the state signified a unit which had a control over a defined territory
and it enjoyed absolute sovereignty over this territory. By the time, role of state and
nation was properly established in the daily life of west, in India religion was more
decisive, which was related to humanism and the spiritual system, not to the state. In
this respect Dalton argues that Indian thought has not been anti-political, but it depicts
government as an unfortunate necessity. All modern Indian thinkers, whether their
views regarding state are different, accepted government and state both as a part of
society. Many of modern thinker accepted state as necessity for the proper functioning
of the society. For example, Babasaheb Ambedkar stressed on the role of state in
protecting of weaker section of the society. Contrary to this, there were many thinkers
like Aurobindo and Gandhi those did not have complete trust in the political unit like
state and are often claimed to be ‘philosophical anarchists’. Gandhi firmly believed that
the Atman (soul) exists in every individual and connection between soul is the basis of
harmony, but contrary to this the state is a soulless machine. In his view the state
represents violence in a centralized and organized form. That’s why he was sceptical of
the role of state. For them state was at best a necessary evil and such thinkers stressed
on the need to tame the role of state for larger social transformation and to create an
ethical and moral social order based on conscious and enlightened citizenry. Therefore
8
 they laid emphasis on making state more responsible and accountable to society through
devolution and decentralization of powers.
 Secularism: As we discussed above, religion was an important part of discourse during
the India’s independence struggle. At this time, many thinkers used the word
Secularism to defines their understanding of relation between the religion and the state.
The word secularism, in west, was used to signify complete separate relation between
state and religion. In modern western politics, it is a common belief that the religion is a
private matter of individual and thus state has no business in sphere of religion and vice
versa. Even in context of the British rule in India, this western idea of secularism was
not able to transcend in the modern India. Although this western definition had impact
on some of Indian leaders, but many Indian leaders like Gandhi, Aurobindo did not
believe that Dharma has no role in politics and state has no role in religion. Rather they
stressed on an imminent relation between politics and religion. Dharma as the guiding
principle for statecraft symbolized the perception that rulership is meant for and ethical
and moral upliftment of society by creating conditions where all individuals can
perform their duties and enjoy their liberties without intervention. Thus, in India, we see
a new trend of secularism. In India, the public nature of religion was more commonly
accepted. In this context Gandhi, in his autobiography said that ‘without religion the
idea of polity is quite unimaginable’. He said that “religion should remain method and
medium of our work but one should be very careful about the word 'religion'. It doesn't
refer to the extremist ideologies; it means faith in a particular moral system”. Later this
nature of secularism got reflected in the Indian constitution, which have provision to
protect the rights of religious minorities and establishes the role of state in religion.
 Social Reform and Social Justice: It is well known fact that Britisher succeeded in
colonising India because it was politically divided, but at that time, we Indians were not
merely politically divided. There were many bases like caste, religion, gender on the
basis which one felt oneself superior than other, and he tries to assert this superiority by
curtailing basic human rights of the other person. Earlier Britishers did not interfere in
the social system of India, but with the rising demand of many Indian intellectuals and
leaders like Raja Rammohan Roy, later they interfered. On the other hand, many Indian
thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries established many social, religious, political
institutions and started many movements to address this issue of social divide and
injustice. In this discourse of social reform there was divide among our leaders on the
questions related to role of Britishers in the reform movement and What should be our
reference – we should go back to vedas or we should look toward west. Leaders like
Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotiba Phule considered the help of British rule in this
movement important as they believed that state, by making law and implementing it,
can correct injustice like Sati and caste discrimination. Whereas there were leaders like
Bal Gangadhar Tilak who did not welcome the interference of foreign government in
the social system of India, rather they argued that if any reform was necessary, it should
have its genesis from the demands emanating from society and the people should
9
 initiate the reforms who were ultimately going to be affected by it. Similarly, some of
modern political thinker like Dayanand Saraswati chose the path of revival of ancient
Indian past in modern time. He believed that guidance of Vedas and Vedic value can be
used to eliminate the superstitions and unethical practices prevail in Hinduism and to
pave the way for social reform.
 Model of India’s Economic development: In respect to statecraft, political and
economic development go hand in hand. During 19th and 20th century, there were two
major model of politico-economic development, Capitalism and Communism.
Capitalist model is based on principles like privatization, preference to individual
freedom over society, free and competitive market and in a capitalist system every
individual had to work for himself to create wealth. Communism, on other hand, was
the system where wealth was distributed as per needs of the individual, factors of
production are state-owned and where the need of society (common good) supersede
individual freedom. Which model of politico-economic development should India
adopt, was one of the important questions in front of leaders at that time? Many
thinkers, chose the path of socialism which was inclined toward communism, but this
path was different in many ways from the Communism model of USSR. Pt Nehru
supported a mixed economic model which contains feature of both communism model
of USSR and capitalist model of Europe. Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash
Narayan are major name in the Indian Socialist Dialogue. Lohia, in opposition of
Nehru’s mixed socialism, favoured active civil society and autonomous popular
movement and spoke of mass organizations for socialist reorganization. He strongly
believed that in economic sector small scale industry (like Gandhi) and in political
sphere Chaukhamba state is the ideal combination for politico-economic development
of India. Jayaprakash Narayan was ideologically influenced by Gandhian Sarvodaya
and Vinoba Bhave's Sarvodaya Samaj in addition to Marxism, thus his idea of socialism
reflects all these three. J P Narayan adopted the path of mass struggle to build a new
society, which should be based on the system of people's democracy. Mahatma Gandhi
in India of My Dreams laid down his plan and expectations regarding India’s future. It
is common understanding that Gandhi was against the Mechanization and western
model of development. For politico-economic development of country, Gandhi
presented the Swaraj model, which was based on the principles like Trusteeship,
Sarvodaya (Development of all), Gram Swaraj (democracy in which epicentre of power
is village).
 From Nationalism to Internationalism, Humanism and Cosmopolitanism: One of
the major features of Indian political thinkers was that they often transgressed the
boundaries set by their context. Although their ideas were produced in the context of
colonialism and the development of nationalist movement against it, many of these
thinkers were also equally concerned with the plight of world at large and the issues
concerning humanity in general. Whether it was the promotion of Practical Vedanta as
the idealized form of universal religion in Vivekananda, the concern for world-unity in
10
 Aurobindo, the concerns about cosmopolitanism in Tagore and Gandhi, or the stress on
need for creative exchange between sciences of west and spirituality of India in
thoughts of Bankim, Vivekananda and Gandhi among others, these thinkers went
beyond their immediate concerns to imagine a world order that could redefine humanity
and look for panacea of all human sufferings to create an ideal society. This aspect was
significant as it indicated that the Indian thinkers, although concerned with the problems
facing their own nation, did not limit their contemplation to emancipate the lifeworld of
their own people, rather saw the role of India in guiding the world to a more inclusive
and sensitive understanding of human welfare in general.
1.6 Significance of Studying Modern Indian Thinker

 It provides a new lens for understanding political ideas. The ideas of modern political
thought emerged in the context of colonialism, in response to orientalist thinking and
the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of modern Indian thinkers differ
sharply from those of the west. Western approach is based on binaries like binary
between modern and pre-modern/traditional, rational and irrational, material and
spiritual. In Indian approach we see a kind of synthesis or evolution of one stage to the
other rather than the binaries or dichotomies.
 What is different about Indian thinkers is that their ideas are future oriented but at the
same time, these ideas are deeply embedded in their context. Modern Indian thinker like
Ambedkar, Gandhi and Nehru were deeply engaged in the politics and in dealing the
challenges of their time, but at the same time they were reflecting about the society,
state and politics. Because of this deep and active engagement of these thinkers with
their context, Indian modern political thought not only tells us about the concerns of the
that time but it also presents solutions to our current problems and concerns, which
were dealt by those thinkers in their vision for the future of India.
 In spectrum of modern Indian political thought, we can see and learn how to make
balance between various dichotomies. Modern Indian thinkers, in their works and
speeches, have tried to balance individual freedom with social equality; urban
development with rural development; national unity with religious-cultural diversity,
nationalism with internationalism/global approach of ideas; material prosperity with
spiritual prosperity of individual.
1.7 Conclusion
On the basis of discussion, we have so far, it can be said that modern Indian political thought
is rich archive of philosophy, ideas and concepts which emerged in response to colonialism.
If we have a look on western ideas through the lens of ideas provided by modern Indian
thinker than we can understand political concepts and ideas from a new and enriched
perspective, a perspective which get across the binaries of tradition and modern and
simultaneously tries to bring together east and west. To have an enriched understanding of
modern Indian thought we need to study it with a broad and thematic perspective, not by
11
limiting the political thought to some individual or few individual thinkers. If we unpack the
ideas of the modern Indian thinkers by doing comparative study than we can better
understand and explain Indian society and its social-cultural-economic aspects.
1.8 Practice Questions
1. What do you understand by ‘Modern Indian Political Thought’? Discuss the context in
which modern Indian political thought emerged.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. Critically analyse the main features of modern Indian political thought.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
3. Dennis Dalton calls strategy of modern Indian political thinkers as ‘Preservation by
Reconstruction’. Elaborate.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
4. Compare the characteristics features of modern Indian political thought with that of
western political thought.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

1.9 Suggested Readings

 Chatterjee, Partha (1986). Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, A Derivative
Discourse, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
 Dalton, Dennis Gilmore (1982). Indian Idea of Freedom: Political Thought of Swami
Vivekananda, Aurobindo Ghosh, Mahtama Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore,
Gurgaon: The Academic Press, pp.1-28.
 Mehta, V.R. (1996). Foundations of Indian Political Thought, New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers.

12
 Pantham, Thomas and Kenneth L Deutsch (1986). Political Thought in Modern India.
New Delhi: Sage Publication.
 Pantham, Thomas and V.R. Mehta, “A Thematic Introduction to Political Ideas in
Modern India”, in Mehta, V.R., and Thomas Pantham (eds), 2006, Political Ideas in
Modern India: Thematic Exploration, Vol. X, part 7, of D.P. Chattopadhyay (ed.),
History of Science, Philosophy and culture in Indian Civilization, New Delhi: Sage
Publication, xxvii-lxi.

13
 Unit-2

Raja Rammohan Roy: Rigths

Anju

2. Structure
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Introduction
2.2.1 Early Life and Influences
2.2.2 Ideology
2.3 Contribution and Social Reforms
2.3.1 Brahmo Samaj
2.3.2 Abolition of Sati
2.3.3 Religious Reforms
2.3.4 Disagreement to Caste System
2.3.5 Educational Reforms
2.3.6 Advocate of Western Education
2.3.7 Liberty of Press
2.3.8 Champion of Nationalism
2.3.9 The Synthesizer of Religion and Morality
2.3.10 Love for Liberty and Constitutionalism
2.3.11 Champion of Internationalism
2.4 Roy’s Political Liberalism
2.5 Roy’s Views on Liberty and Rights
2.6 Raja Ram Mohan Roy- Father of Indian Journalism
2.7 Summary
2.8 Practice Questions
2.9 Multiple Choice Questions
2.10 Reference
2.1 Objectives
The unit is concerned with Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s political ideas. He was a notable religious
and social reformer in nineteenth-century India. He established the Liberal tradition in Indian
political thinking. After completing this lesson, you should be able to:
 Recognize the importance of socio-religious reform movements in the formation of
contemporary India;
 Recognize Roy’s struggle against harsh and barbarous social customs; and
14
  Define and explain the role of liberalism in influencing modern Indian political
thinking.
2.2 Introduction
The ‘Father of Modern India,’ ‘Father of the Bengal Renaissance,’ and ‘Father of the Indian
Renaissance’ were all titles given to Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the
founder of the Brahmo Samaj, was a famous Indian social reformer. Raja Ram Mohan Roy is
considered as the pioneer of modern Indian Renaissance for the remarkable reforms he
brought in the 18th and 19th century India. The title ‘Raja’ was bestowed upon him by the
Mughal emperor Akbar II, in 1831. Though Roy was modernist in his approach, he always
tried to link modernity with tradition. He attempted the creative combination of secularism
and spirituality, of Western and Eastern philosophy. He wanted to present the concept of
universal religion by combining the best features of all leading religions of the world. He was
of the opinion that rationality and modernity needed to be introduced in the field of religion
and that “irrational religion” was at the root of many social evils. This concept of universal
religion meant not merely religious tolerance, but also transcending all the sectarian barriers
of separate religion He was the founder of Liberal tradition in Indian political thought.
He was born into an affluent Brahman family in British-ruled Bengal (varna). Little is
known about his early life and education, but he appears to have grown up with
unconventional religious beliefs. He travelled frequently outside Bengal as a child and
learned numerous languages, including Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and English, in addition to
Bengali and Hindi.
Rammohan began giving money to Englishmen working in Calcutta for the British
East India Company starting in the late 18th century. John Digby, a subordinate company
officer who introduced him to Western culture and literature, hired him in 1805. For the
following ten years, Roy worked as Digby’s assistant for the British East India Company.
During that time, Rammohan resumed his religious studies. In 1803 he published a tract
criticising India’s superstition and religious differences, both within Hinduism and between
Hinduism and other religions. He proposed a monotheistic Hinduism as a cure for those ills,
in which reason leads the faithful to “the Absolute Originator, who is the initial principle of
all religions.” He looked to the Vedas (Hinduism’s sacred writings) and the Upanishads
(speculative philosophical literature) for a philosophical foundation for his religious ideas,
translating old Sanskrit treatises into Bengali, Hindi, and English and producing summaries
and treatises on them. The adoration of the Supreme God, who is beyond human
comprehension and who sustains the universe, was the fundamental focus of those scriptures
for Roy. In 1824, the French Sociéte Asiatique granted him honorary membership in
recognition of his translations.
In 1815, Rammohan Roy created the short-lived Atmiya-Sabha, or Friendly Society,
to spread his monotheistic Hinduism ideas. In order to read the Old and New Testaments, he
acquired Hebrew and Greek. In 1820, he released Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and

15
Happiness, a collection of Christ’s ethical precepts culled from the four Gospels. The purpose
of this research is to conduct a conceptual analysis of Rammohan’s social reforms and
movements for social justice.
2.2.1 Early Life and Influences
The ‘Maker of Modern India’ Raja Ram Mohan Roy was born on August 14, 1774 to
Ramakanta Roy and Tarini Devi in Radhanagar village of Hoogly district, Bengal Presidency.
Among his efforts, the abolition of the brutal and inhuman Sati Pratha was the most
prominent. His efforts were also instrumental in eradicating the purdah system and child
marriage. Besides Bengali and Sanskrit, Roy had mastered Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Greek,
Latin and 17 other leading languages spoken in the world. Roy’s familiarity with such diverse
languages exposed him to a va’riety of cultural, philosophical and religious experiences. He
studied Islam thoroughly. The rationality and the logical consistency of Arabic literature in
general and the mutajjil in particular impressed Roy greatly. The Sufi poets like Saddi and
Haafiz made a deep impact on Roy’s mind. The Quaranic concept of Tauhid or Unity of God
fascinated Roy. Roy also had .studied the teachings of the Buddha Dhamma. It is said that in
the course of his travels he reached Tibet. There he was pained to see how the principles of
Buddhism were blatantly violated and how idol-worship, which had no place in the Dhamma
of Lord Buddha, had come to be accepted. Roy admired the Bible as much as he did the
Vedanta and the Quran. Many of his critics thought that two major features of Roy’s Brahmo
Samaj, namely, the opposition to idol-worship, and the practice of collective prayer were
borrowed from Christianity. He also compiled “The Precepts of Jesus” with a view to proving
how the teachings of Christ could be better adapted to rational man’s use.
2.2.2 Ideology
Ram Mohan Roy was heavily inspired by Western modern ideas, emphasising rationalism
and current scientific approaches. His immediate challenge was his native Bengal’s religious
and social deterioration. Instead of leading to the improvement of society’s condition, he
considered that religious orthodoxies had become sources of hurt and detriment to social life,
as well as sources of trouble and bewilderment to the people.
He believed that religious change entails both social and political reform. HIs thought
that each offender must apologise for his sins via self-purification and repentance, rather than
through sacrifices and ceremonies. He believed in the social equality of all humans and was
thus a staunch opponent of the caste system. He was drawn to Islam because of its
monotheistic. He stated that the underlying message of Vedanta is likewise monotheistic. His
concept of a one, unitarian god was a response to orthodox Hinduism’s polytheism and
Christian trinitarianism. Monotheism, he argued, promoted a single universal model for
humanity.
He believed that Hindu civilization could not grow unless women were freed from
inhuman forms of oppression such as illiteracy, child marriage, sati, and purdah. He defined

16
sati as a violation of every humanitarian and social feeling, as well as a hallmark of a race’s
moral debasement.
2.3 Contribution and Social Reforms
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a great social reformer. He modernized Indian society in many
ways. Ram mohan as the ‘first modern man’ of India realized early that social reform was the
precondition for the regeneration of the people of our country. Roy believed in, the
progressive role of the British rule in India and sought government held in the matter of
social reforms, especially in the form of socially progressive legislations. Roy’s aim was the
creation of a new society based on the principles of tolerance, sympathy and reason, where
the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity would be accepted by all, and where man
would be free from the traditional shackles which had enslaved him for ages. He yearned for
a new society which would be cosmopolitan and modern. Roy’s methods of social reform
were multifaceted. He combined all possible means, including even those which were
commonly believed to be incompatible. His reforms have been discussed below:
2.3.1 Brahmo Samaj
The Brahmo Samaj (1828- The society of God) was the first attempt by Indians in the
nineteenth century to reform Hindu society. It is a cosmopolitan religious organization based
on the positive sides of all the prevailing religion. Initially, the reform was named as ‘Brahmo
Sabha’ in 1820 but later in 19th century, it was renamed as Adi Brahmo Samaj meaning the
society of men believing in the worship of supreme power in spirit form but opposing the idol
worship of the Almighty. The Brahmo Samaj was essentially a monotheistic reform
movement in the Hindu religion. The Brahmo Samaj was a reflection of the Bengal
Renaissance and took active participation in social emancipation, which included the
abolition of sati, the caste system, child marriage, dowry and the betterment of the status of
women in society. The core of the Brahmo Samaj was to understand that all human beings
were related at a human level and hence no discrimination should be practiced, be at the level
of caste, religion or gender. The Bhahmo Samaj propagated the oneness of God, brotherhood,
morality and charity and was against idol worship, polygamy, caste system, sati, child
marriage and other meaningless rituals. The prominent leader of the Brahmo Samaj Keshad
Chandra Sen, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis, Satyajit Ray,
Rabindranath Tagore, Debendranath Tagore. The Brahmo Samaj is credited with being one of
the most important reform movements in India which led to the foundation of modern India.
Its educational and social reform activities instilled a new confidence which, in turn,
contributed to the growth of national movement. A number of Brahmo Samajists were later
prominent in the struggle of Independence.
2.3.2 Abolition of Sati
Sati is described as a Hindu custom in India in which the widow was burnt to ashes on her
dead husband’s pyre. Basically the custom of Sati was believed to be a voluntary Hindu act in
which the woman voluntary decides to end her life with her husband after his death. But there

17
were many incidences in which the women were forced to commit Sati, sometimes even
dragged against her wish to the lighted pyre. The Brahmins and other higher castes in the
society encouraged it. Raja Ram Mohan Roy raised his voice against the Sati system. A few
rulers of
India tried to ban this custom. In 1818, Roy wrote his first essay on sati in which he
argued that the woman had an existence independent of her husband and hence, she had no
reason to end her life on the demise of her husband. The society had no right over her life.
Right to life of both man and women was equally important. Roy found that ignorance of the
women about their legitimate rights, their illiteracy, customary denial of the property rights to
the widow and the consequent helplessness, dependence, misery and humiliation were some
of the causes behind this practice. According to Roy, Sati was nothing short of murder and
was therefore a punishable offence under the law. It was Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s efforts,
bore fruits and this practice was stopped by an Act passed in 1829 during Lord William
Bentinck. Thus, a long prevailing ugly practice of the Hindus was uprooted.
2.3.3 Religious Reforms
Ram Mohan raised his voice against idolatry. In his book Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin’ he
championed the cause of Monotheism. He criticized idol-worship by the Hindus. He rejected
polytheism, idol-worship and rituals of different religions. He advocated monotheism or unity
among gods. He also advised people to be guided by the conscience. He inspired men to
cultivate rationality. To all he appealed to observe the principle of unity of God. Further, he
formed ‘Atmiya Sabha’ in 1815 to carry on discussions among scholars on religion and
philosophy. Through this, he raised his voice against religious and social malpractices,
Champion of Women Liberty Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a champion of women’s rights in
India. He laid the foundations of the women’s liberation movement in this country. He
revolted against the subjection of women and pleaded for the restoration of their rights. Raja
Ram Mohan Roy advocated the liberty of Women. He was determined to give women her
proper place in the society. Besides abolishing Sati, he advocated in favor of widow
remarriage. In 1822, Roy wrote a book entitled Brief Remarks Regarding Modern
Enchroachments on the Ancient Right of Females. He argued that like the sons, daughters
have also their right over parental property. He also influenced the British government to
bring necessary modification in the existing law. He raised voice against child-marriage and
polygamy. He was the advocate of women education. Brahmo Samaj which he founded paid
special attention to women’s education. Thus, he advocated women’s liberty out and out and
awakened them.
2.3.4 Disagreement to Caste System
The caste system was a very ugly practice prevailing in Indian society right from the later
Vedic age. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s strongest objection to the caste system was on the
grounds that it fragmented society into many divisions and subdivisions. The higher castes
like Brahmins and Kshatriyas looked down upon the Sudras, Chandalas and other aboriginals.

18
Ram Mohan opposed this ugly system of the Indian society. To him, Caste divisions
destroyed social homogeneity and the integrated texture of society and weakened itpolitically.
To him everybody was a son or daughter of the God. So, there is no difference among men.
He was in favour of inter caste and inter-racial marriages, which he thought, could effectively
break the barriers of the caste divisions. There should not exist hatred and animosity among
them. Everybody is equal before God. Thus, ignoring differences among themselves they
should embrace each other ignoring differences. Then, the true purpose of God will be
materialized. By advocating this equality among men, Ram Mohan became the eyesore of
many higher caste Indians.
2.3.5 Educational Reforms
Ram Mohan Roy was educated in traditional languages like Sanskrit and Persian. He came
across English much later in life and learned the language to get better employment with the
British. But a voracious reader, he devoured English literature and journals, extracting as
much knowledge as he could. He realised that while traditional texts like Vedas, Upanishads
and Quran provided him with much reverence for philosophy, his knowledge was lacking in
scientific and rational education. He advocated the introduction of an English Education
System in the country teaching scientific subjects like Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and
even Botany. He paved the way to revolutionizing education system in India by establishing
Hindu College in 1817 along with David Hare which later went on to become one of the best
educational institutions in the country producing some of the best minds in India. His efforts
to combine true to the roots theological doctrines along with modern rational lessons saw him
establish the Anglo-Vedic School in 1822 followed by the Vedanta College in 1826.
2.3.6 Advocate of Western Education
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a great scholar having sharp intellect in the Vedas, Upanishads,
Quran, Bible and several other holy scriptures. He very well realized the importance of
English language. He could visualize the need of a scientific, rational and progressive
education for the Indians. During his time, when controversy was going on between the
orientalists and occident lists, he sided with the latter and advocated in favour of the
introduction of the English system of education. He liked Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Botany, Philosophy. At the same time he also desired that the Indian Vedic studies and
philosophical systems were to be studied and analyzed properly. He supported the move of
Lord Macaulay and championed the cause of the English system of education in India. His
motto was to take Indians the path of progress. He established English school in 1816 and
Vedanta College in 1825. He wanted to introduce modem system of education. Of course, he
could not live to see the introduction of English system of education in India in 1835.
However, his efforts and dreams were materialized into reality even after his death.
2.3.7 Liberty of Press
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was the ‘Father of Indian Journalism’. He believed in the freedom of
press. He fought for the rights of vernacular press. He edited a newspaper in Bengali named

19
‘Sampled Kaumudi’. He was also the editor of Mirat- ul-Akbar. When restrictions were
imposed on the publications of newspapers, he reacted sharply and criticized the British
authorities vehemently. In his editorials, he reflected important social, political, economic,
religious and other problems with which the Indians were grossly entangled. This brought
public consciousness. His writings were so powerful that people were deeply moved by this.
He could express his view in powerful English.
2.3.8 Champion of Nationalism
Raja Ram Mohan Roy believed in the political freedom of man. In 1821 he had written to J.S.
Buckingham, the editor of the ‘Calcutta Journal’ that he believed in the freedom of European
and Asiatic countries. He advised Indians to have self-freedom in thought and action. He
showed a bright example by condemning the Jury Act of1826 which had introduced religious
discrimination in the law courts. According to this Act a Hindu or a Mohammedan could be
tried either by a European or a native Christian but not vice versa. Ram Mohan protested
against it.
Thus, his nationalism was blatant He definitely fought for the legitimate rights of the
Indians and championed the cause of Indian nationalism. Further, Ram Mohan Roy himself
proceeded to London to plead a case on behalf of Akbar n, the Mughal Emperor. This
reflected his nationalism.
2.3.9 The Synthesizer of Religion and Morality
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a noble soul. He brought a perfect blending between religion and
morality. According to him a man must possess virtues like merry, morality, catholicity,
forgiveness and so on. These qualities will purify his soul. Further, man will be regulated by
these qualities. By cultivating these noble qualities a man can acquire divine knowledge and
devote for the welfare of the society at large. Further his religious catholicity will further
bloom by the cultivation of these qualities. Thus, Raja Ram Mohan Roy was undoubtedly a
synthesizer of religion and morality which aimed at the welfare of the society at large.
2.3.10 Love for Liberty and Constitutionalism
Liberty and constitutionalism were the two important aspects upon which Raja Ram Mohan
emphasized. He preferred a constitutional form of Government for every nation. Despotism
or autocracy, he hated from the core of his heart. He told that a constitutional government
could only give guarantee of Individual freedom. Thus, he advocated individual liberty and
constitutionalism. This clearly project that Ram Mohan was a champion of human liberty.
2.3.11 Champion of Internationalism
Raja Ram Mohan Roy was the champion of internationalism. He wanted universal religion,
synthesis of human culture and ideas, end of imperialism and peaceful co-existence of
nations. Thus, he became the harbinger of a modem age. No Indian by that time had seriously
thought about it what Ram Mohan advocated. He really advocated the principle of
collaboration of mankind. Rabindranath Tagore commented that “Ram Mohan was the only

20
person in his time …. to realize completely the significance of the modem age. He knew that
the ideal of human civilization does not lie in isolation of independence but in the
brotherhood of interdependence of individuals and nations.”
2.4 Roy’s Political Liberalism
Liberalism is a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the
individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberalism had emerged as the most valuable
product of renaissance and reformation in Europe. Liberalism in politics is associated with
nonauthoritarianism, the rule of law, constitutional government with limited powers, and the
guarantee of civil and political liberties. A liberal society is tolerant of different religious,
philosophical, and ethical doctrines and allows individuals to freely form and express their
conscientious convictions and opinions on all matters and live according to their chosen
purposes and life paths. In economic terms, liberalism is associated with an unplanned
economy with free and competitive markets, as well as private ownership and control of
productive resources. Raja Rammohan Roy was one of the most outstanding personalities of
the 19th century, as a pioneer of modernity, and a visionary of Liberal Democracy. It became
the dominant ideology of the first phase of religious and social reform in’ India. Liberalism,
in brief, stands for the value and dignity of the individual personality; the central position of
Man in the historical development; and the faith that people are the ultimate source of all
power. Roy advocated liberal principles in all walks of life. In the religious field Roy stood
for tolerance, a noncommunal approach to all problems and secularism. He valued the
freedom of the individual to follow the dictates of his conscience and even to defy the
commands of the priestly class.
2.5 Roy’s Views on Liberty and Rights
Liberty was a pivot around which the entire religio-socio-political thought of Roy revolved.
His protest against idolatry, his agitation against Sati, his demand for modern western
education and his insistence on freedom of press, right of women, and his demands for
“separation for powers” and for the codification of laws were all expressions of his intense
love for liberty. For him, liberty was a “priceless possession of mankind”. He was the first to
deliver the message of political freedom to India. Although Roy recognised the positive gains
India would get from British rule, he was never in favour of an unending foreign rule in
India. He considered the British connection necessary for India’s social emancipation.
Political freedom was bound to follow. His lave for liberty however was not limited to one
nation or community. It was universal. He supported all struggles which aimed at human
freedom. Freedom for him was indivisible. Freedom was the strongest passion of Roy’s mind.
He believed equally in the freedom of body and mind, so also the freedom of action and
thought. He shunned all restrictions imposed by consideration of race, religion and customs
on human freedoms. Roy was the first to create awareness for civil rights amongst the
Indians. He was grateful to the Britishers because they made available to Indians all those
civil rights which were enjoyed by the Queen’s subjects in England. Though Roy did not

21
specifically enlist the civil rights, he seems to include in it the following rights. Right to life
and liberty, right to have opinions and freedom of expression, Right to property, Right to
religion etc. Roy gave the greatest importance to the right to freedom of opinion and
expression. To him it included the freedom of creativity of mind and intellect, as well as the
freedom of expressing one’s opinions and thoughts through different media. According to
Roy, freedom of expression was equally useful to the rulers and the ruled. Ignorant people
were more likely to revolt against all that the rulers did, they could turn against authority
itself. In contrast an enlightened public would be opposed only to the abuse of power by
authority and not to the existence of authority itself. The free press, the Raja argued, had
never caused a revolution in any part of the world. But many examples could be cited where,
in the absence of a free press, since the grievances of the people remained unrepresented and
unredressed, the situation had become ripe for a violent ‘revolutionary’ change. A free and
independent press alone could-bring forth the best in the government as well as the people.
Roy, however, was not against the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of press. He even
accepted some additional restrictions on the Indian Press, which were not imposed on the
press in England. Such restrictions, he believed, might be necessary here as some Indians
were likely to encourage hatred in the minds of the natives towards the British rulers. Roy
also justified the restrictions imposed with a view to check the seditious attempts of creating
hostilities with neighbouring friendly states. He, however, strongly objected to the restrictions
imposed by the bureaucracy in India. These restrictions, in his opinion, were arbitrary and
uncalled for by the circumstances in this country. In the Political field, Roy was a supporter
of the impersonal authority of law and opposed all kinds of arbitrary and despotic power. He
was convinced that the existence of constitutional government is the best guarantee of human
freedom. He insisted on the use of constitutional means as when required to safeguard the
rights. He preferred the gradual improvements of the condition of this country because, to
him, such improvements were more lasting and profound.
In the economic sphere, Roy believed in the sanctity of right to property. Similarly, he
believed that a strong middle class had an important role to play in socio-political dynamics.
He was for the emancipation of poor peasants who were exposed to the exploitation of
zamindars.
He wanted the government to reduce its demands of landlords. He wanted to preserve
the ryotwari system and rural basis of Indian civilization and also establish modem scientific
industry. He however differed from the other western liberal thinkers in one important
respect, viz. role of state and sphere of state activities. In his scheme of things, the state is
expected to bring about social reform, in protecting the rights of the tenants against the
landlords etc. Roy’s Liberal Perception on Law, Administration and International Co-
existence According to Roy, Law is the “creation of passionless reason”. It was the command
of the sovereign. Hence, even the highest officer in the East India Company did not possess
the competence for enacting the laws for India. The king-in-Parliament alone could have that
authority. What is more important is, before finalising every piece of legislation relating to
India should take into account the views of the economic and intellectual elites in this
22
country. Important contribution of Roy was in the context of law relates to the codification of
law. He argues that the codification of law was in the interest of both the rulers and ruled and
it should be done on the basis of the principles common and agreeable to all groups and
factions in the society. In the course of codification, the long-standing customs of this country
should not be overlooked. Of course, only those customs which are reasonable and conducive
to general welfare of the people should be picked up. Codified law should be simple, clear
and exact. Codification would make the interpretations of laws more impersonal and its
application more uniform. Roy had a clear perception of the distinction between law, custom
and morality. He accepted that evolving customs were an important source of law, but the
two could not be identified. He also made a distinction between law and morality. Some laws,
according to Roy, might be legally valid, but morally indefensible. Conversely, some
practices might be morally sound but could not be given legal force. Principles of morality
are relative to the social realities and any law to be effective must take into account these
ethical principles prevalent in a given society.
In his book entitled ‘An Exposition of Revenue and Judicial System in India’ Roy
presented a profound discussion on urgent reforms in administrative and judicial matters. He
stressed the point that the administration could not be efficient and effective unless there were
official speaking in the language of the masses. There should also be several channels of
communication between the administration and the people. Roy’s suggestions of reform in
the judicial field are more numerous because for him an efficient, impartial and an
independent judiciary was the supreme guarantee of liberty. Roy believed that the association
of the natives in the judicial process had to be an essential feature of judicial administration.
Other measures advocated by Roy included: constant supervision of the judicial proceedings
by a vigilant public opinion, substitution of English for Persian as the official language to be
used in the courts of law, appointment of Indian assessors in civil suits, trial by jury,
separation of judicial from executive functions, and the constant consultation of the native
interests before the enactment of any law that concerned them. He also suggested the revival
of the age-old Panchayat system of adjudication. Roy thus urged several - reforms and.
corrections in the Indian Judicial system in keeping with political liberalism.
Though Roy was a liberal thinker, he did not believe in the policy of laissez-faire. He
could never accept that the sphere of state activity was limited only to the political field. He
had appealed repeatedly in his writings to the state authorities to undertake many social,
moral and cultural responsibilities which did not strictly come under the category of
‘political’. He wanted the state to protect the tenants against the landlords, to make
arrangements for the useful and liberal education, to eradicate the ugly practices like Sati and
to give equal protection to the lives of-both males and females, and to make efforts to create a
new social order based on the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice.
His ambition was to change the educational system completely. He was convinced
that only a modern, science education could instil new awareness and new capabilities in the
Indian people. Without this kind of education, social reform in India would be very weak and

23
the country would always remain backward. Though Roy himself was a great scholar of
Sanskrit, he always felt that the Sanskrit learning was irrelevant to modern lndia and hence he
strongly opposed it. He appealed to the rulers that instead of perpetuating irrelevant Sanskrit
learning, they should help equip the new generations of Indians with useful modern scientific
knowledge.
Roy wanted instruction in useful modern sciences like chemistry, mathematics, anatomy,
natural philosophy and not load young minds with grammatical complexities, and speculative
or imaginary knowledge, Roy’s views and activities were really pioneering in giving a new
turn to the educational system in India. He was the first eminent advocate of women’s
education. Roy was an ardent supporter of international coexistence. He was perhaps the first
thinker of the 18th century who had a clear vision of internationalism. This vision might have
occurred to him in the course of his search for universal religion. Roy, the prophet of
universalism, argued that all nations of the world must be placed on an equal footing in order
to achieve global unity and a sense of broad fraternity. It is only then that the contradiction
between nationalism and internationalism can be ended. Roy held that the different tribes and
nations were merely the branches of the same family and hence, there must be frequent
exchange of views and frequent give and take in all matters among the enlightened nations of
the world. This, according to Roy, was the only way to make the human race happy and
contented. Moreover, he was a liberal at heart is evident from the letter he wrote to
Buckingham when he heard about the suppression of the people of Nepal at the hands of
Austrians. He wrote: “I am obliged to conclude that I shall not live to see liberty universally
restored to the nations of Europe and Asiatic nations, and especially those that are European
colonies... under these circumstances I consider the cause of Nepolitans as my own and their
enemies as ours. Enemies to liberty and friends of despotism have never been and never will
be ultimately successful”.
Historian K.M. Panikar rightly remarked, for whom “Raja Ram Mohun Roy was the
real founder of liberal tradition in India with his commitment to the principle of equality,
religious freedom, women’s right to freedom and establishment of a casteless society.”
2.6 Raja Ram Mohan Roy– Father of Indian Journalism
The Press is aptly referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy other three pillars are
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. We consider press as free from bias and prejudice.
Press reflects the realities of this world as wished by social and political world. Rammohan
was a great champion of the freedom of the Press. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was described by
Jawaharlal Nehru as a founder of the Indian press. His efforts to liberate the Press were made
with the aim of education Indians about the affairs of the nation in their true perspective. He
himself published newspapers in English, Bengali and Persian for the purpose of creating
mass consciousness as a veritable check against the British authoritarianism. Besides being a
great social reformer Ram Mohan also made a valuable contribution to Bengali literature and
he is regarded as the father of Bengali prose. He was the first to realize the value of the
newspapers as an instrument for diffusing intellectual light. He founded the Sambut Kaumudi

24
(moon of intelligence) in 1821 in Calcutta. Due to the success of another rival newspaper
named Samachar Chandrika Roy was forced to close it down in 1822. However it was
revived the following year. Roy also started a newspaper in Persian ‘Mirut ul Akhbar’(mirror
of news) in 1822.
The purpose Raja Ram Mohan Roy had in mind could not be served properly if there
was no freedom of press. He championed the cause of press freedom. In 1823, Press
Ordinance was promulgated. It prohibited the publication of newspaper or periodicals without
previous license from the Governor-General-in-Council. Raja Ram Mohan Roy protested
against it and submitted a memorandum to the Supreme Court arguing in favour of freedom
of press in India.
The British East India Company was against Freedom of press in India. But Raja Ram
Mohan Roy strongly argued against this view. The company had the fear of public criticism
under a free press. Ram Mohan Roy was successful in convincing the authority with his
strong logic arguing that in India Freedom of press would not be harmful for the government
as people had been loyal to it. Roy pointed out that a free press acted as a safety valve and did
not give any scope for sudden outburst. Freedom of press was helpful to both the government
and the people. A free press acts like a channel of communication between the two and solves
many problems. People come to know about the plans, programmes, policies and intentions
of the government through it. People also express their reactions and grievances through it
thus making the governance more effective. A free press helps disseminate knowledge and
boosts intellectual improvement.
It allows creativity: gives literary, cultural and artistic knowledge and pleasure. The
government comes to know about the defects of its policies and administration and gets a
scope to remedy those before any crisis arises. Raja Ram Mohan Roy argued that a free press
fails revolution and does not nourish it. Ram Mohan Roy however, was not in favour of
absolute freedom of press. In tead he wanted reasonable restrictions on it. He believed that
those who try to incite hatred in the minds of the Indians against the British nation should be
punished. Similarly, an attempt to provoke hostilities with neighbours and friendly states
must be duly penalized.
2.7 Summary
Raja Ram Mohan Roy is hailed as “the Father of Modern India”. He attempted to combine
the western and eastern philosophy. His writings and ideas are an example of a synthesis of
ancient Indian ideas with modern Western Political Principles. According to Roy, another
factor responsible for the deteriorating political and social milieu was the social decadence of
the Indian society. He wanted to build a new Indian society where principles of tolerance,
sympathy, reason, liberty, equality and fraternity would be honoured. A multi-faceted
personality, Roy carried on a relentless crusade against all kinds of injustices, exploitative
practices and superstitions.

25
 Rammohan Raja Roy was deeply concerned about the condition of women in his time
and led a strong movement for their freedom. He disproved the country’s belief that women
were intellectually and ethically inferior to men. He was concerned about women’s
contemporary education and their role in social rebuilding. Roy fought for women’s property
rights. He decried the terrible behaviours that were to blame for women’s situation. He was
against infanticide and attempted to persuade people that Hinduism does not allow a woman
to be burned alive as proof of her chastity, and that human reason, too, does not support this
practise. A woman cannot be held guilty for her husband’s natural death; burning an innocent
woman is a violation of human dignity. Roy contended that life is a gift from God, and that
society has no authority to kill it. A widow, like a widower, should be able to remarry. If it is
not possible, she is free to live a religious life.
2.8 Practice
1. Describe in details the Political Idea of Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
2. Evaluate the contribution of Roy in Indian renaissance.
3. Explain the idea of Roy on law, custom and morality.
4. Why is Raja Ram Mohan Roy called the ‘father of modern India’? Evaluate his role
as the pioneer of social reforms in India.
5. Critically examine the salient features of the socio-political thought of Raja Ram
Mohan Roy.
2.9 Multiple Choice Questions
1. Who established the “Atmiya Sabha” a precursor in the socio-religious reforms in
Bengal?
a) Vivekanand
b) Dayanand Saraswati
c) Raja Ram Mohan Roy
d) Aurobindo
2. Which of the following statement is not correct about Raja Ram Mohan Roy?
a) Raja Ram Mohan Roy was born in a well-to-do family in Bengal, probably in
1772.
b) He died in Indian in 1833.
c) He was given the title of Raja by the Mughal Emperor.
d) He started the newspaper named “Sambad Kaumudi”
3. Who wrote the book’ A Gift to monotheists’?
a) David Hare
b) Raja Ram Mohan Roy

26
 c) Mahadev Govind Ranade
d) Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
4. Who of the following leaders is not associated with the Brahma Samaj?
a) Debendranath Tagore
b) Keshab Chandra Sen
c) Raaja ram Mohan Rai
d) Atma Ram Pandurang

2.10 Reference
1) Das H. H. (2005), Indian Political Thought, National Publishing House, Dariyaganj
New Delhi.
2) Verma V. P. (2017), Modern Indian Political Though, Lakshmi Narayan Agrawal
Educational Publisher, Agra.
3) Collet S.D, The Life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, London, 1990.
4) Cromwell Crawford S., Ram Mohan Roy, His Era and Ethics, Arnold –Heinemann,
New Delhi, 1984.
5) Das P.K., Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Brahmanism, Kakwip, 24, parganas, Calcutta,
1970.
6) Joshi V.C (ed), Ram Mohan Roy-and the process of Modernization in India,Vikas
Publishing House, Kanpur, 1975.
7) Mahajan V.D., Leaders of the Nationalist Movement, Sterling publishers, New
Delhi, 1978.
8) Minni Thakur, Raja Ram Mohan Roy his social, political and economic ideas, Deep
and Deep publications, New Delhi, 1987.
9) Sankhdher B.M., press, politics and public opinion in India: Dynamics of
Modernization and social Transformation, New Delhi, 1984.
10) Sankhdher, B.M. Raja Mohan Roy: The Apostle of Indian Awakening-Some
Contemporary Estimates, Navrang, New Delhi, 1989.

27
 Unit-3

Pandita Ramabai
Dr. Smita Agarwal

3. Structure
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Life Sketch
3.3 Emancipation of Indian women
3.4 Question of ‘Choice’ in marriage
3.5 Intervention by Colonial Authorities
3.6 Conclusion
3.7 Practice Question
3.8 References

3.1 Introduction
Pandita Ramabai was one of the great Indian women social reformers of colonial times. Her
writings reflect an in depth knowledge of the structures of patriarchy that engulfed upper
caste Indian women. The structures of patriarchy which she had discussed were erected due
to religious beliefs and practises that had put high caste Hindu women in a deplorable
condition. Her contributions towards uplifting them was through an informed education
system that could help women reflect critically on socio-religious structures that put them in
subordinate position. In this process she had tried to challenge the nationalist construction of
women. Her works are of immense importance even today as women continue to reel under
patriarchy due to the structures that were created with help of religion. Her efforts to
dismantle these structures took her beyond Indian borders where she was trying to forge an
international feminism network to dismantle patriarchal structures that was universal in
nature for women everywhere.
3.2 Life Sketch
Pandita Ramabai’ was a social reformer who toiled hard to champion women’s rights
especially their right to education and their freedom of movement. She was also a learned
scholar who wrote several books and articles in quest to improve the rights of women. She
was born on 23rd April, 1858. Her parents were Anant Shastri Dongare and Lakshmibai.
Though she was born in a Brahmin family her father was a liberal reformer. Her father
disobeyed all the social pressures prevalent at that time that prevented women in getting
education and knowledge and he went on to educate both his wife and children in Sanskrit
text and verse. Her father was a revolutionary of his times who even refused to get Ramabai
married until she attains adulthood. It was from him that she got inspiration to work towards

28
social reforms. During her initial travel journey where she accompanied first her father and
after his demise then with her brother, one thing that shook her was the degrading treatment
that was meted to women of her country. After the demise of her parents in the jungles of
Karnataka due to famine, young Ramabai and her brother were left orphans. They had to face
very cruel conditions of hunger, homelessness and poverty. With immense struggle they
charted they part to Calcutta where their conditions improved. Hailing from Brahmin caste
background they very soon got introduced to intellectual circles. With strong background in
Sanskrit both Ramabai and her brother made a mark in their domain of shastraic knowledge.
Very soon she started lecturing on Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy. She was invited
to public gatherings and meetings for showing off her knowledge of her subject. The title
Pandita’ was bestowed on her in one of these meetings to celebrate her excellent command
over Sanskrit at a very young age. in a short span of time after gaining recognition her brother
died and the young Ramabai was left all alone in the world. Since the society did not look up
to single women with dignity and fearing for her safety she married Bipin Bihari Medhavi, a
shudra, who held masters in arts degree and was a law graduate. By going for inter-caste
marriage Pandita Ramabai broke the caste shackles prevalent at that time. However her
happiness was short lived as young Medhavi died of cholera suddenly and she was left with a
baby Manorama. In order to carve a niche for herself and her baby and to escape widowhood
ostracism Ramabai decided to leave Calcutta and go back to Pune, her hometown. Here she
established the Arya Mahila Samaj to promote female education and concentrate on working
towards eradicating child marriage. She also started learning English and wrote a book called
Stree Dharma Niti (Morals for Women).
As she was dedicatedly working for the Samaj that she had set up, being one of the first
in this field of social reforms, Pandiat Ramabai got a chance to pressurize the British
government to focus its policy for Girl child education. This she did in front of Hunter
commission. As time passed she got more involved in the workings of the samaj and women
issues and she realized that she required training in medicine to take care of derogatory health
condition of Indian women. In order to successfully pursue her interest in medicine she
decided to go to England. She got the help of her English missionary friend in 1883 Miss
Hurford who accompanied her to England in 1883. There she was made a professor of
Sanskrit at Cheltenham Female College. While she was staying in England she picked up
English language. In England, she developed close association with her Christian missionary
friends. She was already distraught with the rot in Hinduism and status of women in Hindu
religion. As a result Pandita Ramabai converted to Christianity there. In 1886, she received
an invitation to attend the graduation ceremony of her cousin, Dr. Anandibai Joshi. There she
befriended Dean Bodley of the Women's Medical College who encouraged her to work in
America. Ramabai got the opportunity to study the American public school system and also
received industrial training therein. Pandita Ramabai during her stay in America while
studying medicine started giving lectures in various parts of America. Her motto was to raise
money that can help her run the samaj in India. During this time in Americashe also wrote the
book “High Caste Hindu Woman”. She started networking with influential people and

29
lobbying for aid to start a secular school for child widows in India. In 1889, Pandita Ramabai
returned to India after a period of six years, she continued her crusade for the betterment of
the women. Within six weeks of her return to the country, pandita Ramabai had established a
school called Sharada Sadan in Bombay. In this sadan she used to train the girls in basic
education and impart skills that could help them becoming self-dependent. As a result Pandita
Ramabai faced considerable opposition from many Indian reformers and upper caste men
who saw her actions as breach upon the traditional ethos of Hinduism. They attacked her
through newspapers and tainted her image ; for they perceived her for spreading influence on
her students to convert to Christianity. This was further reinforced in 1904 when she started
translating the Bible in Marathi to make people attracted towards Christianity. In 1913 the
New Testament was published and by 1924 the complete Bible was published. Ramabai set
up Mukti Mission (The Home of Salvation) for widows and for women emancipation and she
died in 1922 leaving a strong legacy for improving the condition of women of that time in
India.

Key Ideas
3.3 Emancipation of Indian women
Ramabai’s personal experience and her writings tell a woeful tale of Indian women. Low and
unruly status of women was the dominant theme in her writings. She was one of the first
person’s who dared to challenge the coercive customs of child marriage and enforced
widowhood through education. She defined women’s ‘Emancipation’ as investment in
societal upliftment rather than attainment in gender equality.1 She challenged the
internalisation and socialization process through education that was the result of the new
curriculum set up to train Indian women. The nurturing and creative aspects of women's
nature were consistently stressed, reinforcing the home and family oriented stereotype
without helping them develop independent thinking. The result was a book titled Stri Dharma
Niti ( Morals for Indian women) written in Sanskritized Marathi stressing on the creation of
new conjugal households and addresses growing middle class. This book tried to discuss
about freedom and equality for women within the household. It asked for imparting education
and giving them respect which could help women in attaining a dignified life Though the
book was picked up to be prescribed in the syllabus reasserting the ideologies of middle class
dominating public culture and the book discussed the educational policies catering to that
class that surrounded her.
At the same time the space that was given to her was used to propagate the unformed and
inchoate consciousness of burden that women were carrying on their shoulders. It involved
carrying household duties without taking a break, nurturing children, continuing to be wives
despite facing verbal and sexual abuses. All these works that involved toil but no recognition
or paid work made them to be seen as a burden. That is why in her preface to first edition
Pandita Ramabai refers to the lack of recognised work through which women could be made
to understand their essence and act in an authoritative manner. This according to Pandita
Ramabai was one of the main reasons for their pathetic condition. Pandita Pamabai says that
1
Meera KosambiPandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. , (New Delhi,Oxford University
Press: 2000)12

30
this kind of degrading situation of women and lack of exposure made them a person of
limited intellect and inconsistencies in formulation of understanding on the state of women in
the country which was unfortunate. On reading this book and her dedication to her late
husband one would think that Pandita Ramabai is re-invoking the dominant culture that
staged women as part of conjugal duo and importance of a consciously parented and managed
home 2 confirming to stri siksha that was necessary for women at that time that led to creation
of structures of domination for Indian women. She was educating the women of India to
prepare a marriage of their choice and to be a companion of their husbands rather than being
their slaves but doing their household duties like sita and savitri. This reinforces Partha
Chatterjee formulation of women and nationalist question wherein women were made as
carriers of nationalist culture.3 However this notion is being challenged when Ramabai sees
education as cultivating an independent personality. A system of education with a close knit
relation with morality that could push women to true knowledge, to self reliance and
ultimately to the country’s progress and individual’s welfare. For Ramabai knowledge gives
women capacity to reason and pushes them out from well of ignorance. She also stresses the
fact that education is the only capital which person can have which will always remain while
other forms of wealth can disappear overnight. In her formulations for importance of
education Ramabai’s personal experience of her own family helps her reassert its importance.
Now this analysis is not figured in all the writings that have come about discussing
genesis of women’s movement in India. Here we see that Pandita Ramabai is being criticised
for adhering to the middle class norms and teaching women to have moral groundings while
at the same time being independent in making choice
3.4 Question of ‘Choice’ in Marriage
Ramabai radically departed from other male reformers by propagating late female marriage.
While enunciating it she gives both scientific and emotional reasons which were far ahead of
time and which truly strived for women’s equality in society. Scientifically she says that
when women marry young they bear children at a tender age due to which many a times
either the young mother or a young child is lost to death. Emotionally when at a tender age a
girl is made to marry she is left alone to face the difficult life conditions and being dependent
on her husband she easily becomes prey to domestic violence and weak person. This is
asserted in the writings of Pandita Ramabai views on role of education in helping to develop
independence when she elaborates that from the age of eight to twenty one has an inquisitive
mind which is responsible for acquiring knowledge. Therefore marriage should not be
conducted at this age. Rather human mind should be allowed to grow, nurture and be
creative. This is what makes human beings different from animal kingdoms.
Though Ramabai could be clubbed with other social reformers who opposed child
marriage what made her different was her stress on marriage by choice. This is because for
her conjugality was about mutual love which is not known to a child’s mind. Therefore it
results in discord among partners. Late marriage can help women pursue education without
hindrance to domestic diversion. Further if children are produced at an early age their
progeny would be weakened as life sustaining bodily parts like blood, flesh, strength,
intelligence and health are not fully developed.

2
Uma Charkravarti, Pandita Ramabai once more .( New Delhi, Crtical quest:2014)20-22
3
Partha Chatterjee Nation and its Fragments (New Delhi, Oxford University Press: 1992)127

31
 She echoes discourses on bodily health and as a matter of fact it still remains valid till
now. What put her against time is that child marriage is not based on informed choices that
defeats mutuality as basis of new affective household. This can lead to serious ill effects
because love can last long between persons of equal standing. To make her argument more
forceful she says when animals have freedom to develop relationship according to their own
wishes why should human beings not have that freedom? The choice should not be hampered
by social customs or consideration of wealth and should not be based on what is perceived as
good appearance. Mutual conjugal love is most comprehensive form of love encapsulating all
others. While discussing the conjugality Ramabai also invokes mythological figures of Ram
and Sita and talks about eternal love of Sita who after being abandoned due to no fault of hers
still continues her devotion and love to Ram.4 This invocation by Ramabai is to stress upon
mutuality of love between Ram and Sita.
3.5 Intervention by Colonial Authorities
On reading ‘The Cry of Indian women’ and ‘High Caste Hindu Women’ she is at loggerheads
with nationalist would see why militant feminist rhetoric of Pandita Ramabai seemed to have
inhabited same age but not same social space. She endorses sati-savitri model of feminity and
her castigation of average woman as lazy stupid and obstinate and culpable not only of her
own but is also responsible for country’s subjection and stagnation. She exposes the
andocentric and misogynist bias of dharam shastras. Ramabai’s deeper understanding and
reading of Upanishads, manusmritis and Vedas hold the view that it is these texts that are
responsible for low status of women in India. She highlights the fact that in manusmriti the
low account of women is largely because it has kept women subjugated and oppressed. The
social customs prevalent that reinforces patriarchal mindset keeps women dependent and
subjugated. Child marriage, polygamy and enforced widowhood were largely due to these
textbooks that were a source of oppression. It was these texts that made women think their
husband’s are their Gods who need to be obeyed and worshipped and not opposed. So
husband wife relationship got transformed into lord and slave relationship. It was the content
of these text books that showed women as housewife/mother giving primacy to her household
and reproductive role. The problem is not the functions they perform but the low status
accorded to these functions making women’s position precarious in the society. This ideology
is reiterated with the word ‘saubhagyavati’ which means blessed women with many sons and
a living husband. Even the everyday blessings were for males giving no space to women or
girl child. In ‘High caste Hindu women’ highlighting her personal experience she discusses
the low status of high caste hindu women compared to lower caste women. This is largely
due to the hierarchical caste based system that prohibits inter-caste marriages and inter caste
dining. The low status of high caste women in India is that they become flag bearers of
India’s ancient culture based on ancient scriptures so all evils like sati, enforced widowhood ,
child marriages, dowry etc are practiced more on high caste women. Low caste women due to
low income do enjoy some kind of freedom to earn a living to support their family but this is
strictly prohibited amongst the higher caste.
Seeing such a deplorable situation amongst the women of India, Pandita Ramabai wanted
to utilise the progressive mindset of British rule in India, that is why in ‘the cry of Indian
women’ she makes a case for intervention by authorities on the abject condition of women in

4
Meera KosambiPandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. , (New Delhi,Oxford
University Press: 2000)65-68

32
India. She traverses the path from where she could see women trying to lift themselves from
their fallen condition through education and becoming self dependent to women in need of
help. This help she now seeks in form of urgent assistance and support from British who were
ruling India at that time. She begins her plea for support by showing the mindset prevalent in
Indian society against girl child. In her account of women’s oppression she says that
discrimination against women starts from the birth of a female child , whereby she is not
regarded as serving any useful purpose to the parents5. This is because girls can neither
generate income for the family since they will be married off and gone to other home and
secondly the religious textbooks neither impose good deeds for girl child parents. This gives
an opportunity to pass a comment on girl’s work and utility of females in household
rendering them invisible on one hand and denying education on the other hand. She criticizes
social reformers for becoming passive in supporting women’s education and thus pushing
them in vicious circle of darkness, conservativeness, child marriage and miserable life in
hands of in laws. Husbands own their wives and have sovereign rights over them just like
‘Spaniards treated their native Indians’ 6. They do not have any autonomy of their own. They
are seen as property of their husbands. This is why Pandita Ramabai says that “Most people
think that women are living not in slavery in a state natural to them. The belief that women
are not oppressed and that there condition need not be different from present one is so deeply
entrenched in everybody’s mind that it is impossible for anybody to imagine how wretched
their condition really is. What is worse, even women themselves believe that their condition is
as it should be ... this state of mind is the ultimate in slavery... it destroys self respect and the
desire for freedom: the two boons that god has given to humanity’ Widowhood multiplies the
oppression of women where she replaces the servants of the household. During this enforced
widowhood, they are abused sexually by family members which is seen in terms of payment
they make for the ‘sin’ of past births and they become ‘outcasted’ since they are not allowed
to participate in the affairs of the society. On the other hand male widowers after paying
small fine whereby they live for a small time in mourning continue to live happily in
community7 and many a times they get a chance to remarry.
Lot of times Ramabai is criticised for taking two different stands in stree dharma niti and
Cry of Indian women. Critics point at this kind of polarised views in Cry of Indian women as
an outburst and as a ploy to garner resources from foreign contributions that can help support
her to build the destitute home for women especially widows. However this kind of
propaganda against Pandita Ramabai was being done because she had dared to challenge the
nationalist control of Indian women and make them submissive towards nationalist ideology.
This has been aptly said and discussed in many feminist writings especially by Gail Paerson8
who had said that we should also be aware of the nationalist tactics who had used new
education to help some women become conscious of their rights. This was inculcated in
women in such a manner that the newly educated women did not reak public/private divide,
whereby men were seen in public sphere and women used their education to run homes in a

5
Ibid, 106
6
Uma Charkravarti, Pandita Ramabai once more .( New Delhi, Crtical quest:2014)25
7
Meera KosambiPandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. , (New Delhi,Oxford
University Press: 2000)108
8
Gail Pearson “The Female Intelligentsia in Segregated Society: Bombay A Case Study,” in Michael Allen and
S.N. Mukherjee(ed.) Women in India and Nepal. (New Delhi ,Sterling Publishers: 1990)136

33
scientific manner. This is what is termed as extension of female sphere whereby educated
women would go and encourage other women to gain knowledge and contribute towards
freedom struggle of women. This created new boundaries . Yet their participation in the
public affairs (which earlier excluded women) did not challenge the Hindu patriarchal9 social
order. They, like all women, remained subject to a social structure of male control. Sex
segregation entailed the isolation of women from men in separate social spaces. It was not
destroyed during the nationalist resolution of women’s question. Rather it was re-moulded.
This kind of conformist education policy was not liked by Pandita Ramabai. She realises that
this condition for women in India also borrows from the religious scriptures that have become
part of education system that is being imparted to women. In order to show her resentment
she hits the final nail on the coffin by denouncing the practices of Hinduism and not being a
conformist to male domination by converting to Christianity. She is condemned for this act in
India and she is isolated among social reformers group. Nonetheless she laid bears to a self
that refuse to be mowed down by any religious conjunctions. However even in Christanity
she did not find liberation as a result after her conversion Ramabai is seen embroiled in a
debate with churches and sisters. Her primary contestation of church rested on issues of
theology, her selective acceptance of Christian doctrine and rejection of miraculous birth and
divinity of Christ and sex segregation that churches practised. She had stated firmly that door
to universal church would not be closed upon her but she would not accept hierarchical
authority as practised in England church. She said ‘ I have conscience and mind and
judgement of my own I must myself think and do what God has given me the power of doing
and freed myself from yoke of Indian priestly tribe. I am not willing to place myself in
similar yoke’ 10.Ramabai had decidedly refused to be controlled within agenda of social
reformers and nationalist in India she refused to let church dictate to her on matters of how
she understands women question as well as how she enacts her role in confronting the
structures that contained women across.
The High Caste Hindu Women that was published four years later to the Cry of Indian
women was addressed specifically to people of United States. In this book she expands the
earlier essay and discusses in details the abject condition of women starting from birth,
childhood, marriage and forced widowhood. While proving her contentions she uses
scriptural evidence that has legitimised women oppression and has been so much internalised
that it is difficult to break free till right education and self-reliance is inculcated in them. At
the same time her writings and travel experience point out to the phenomena of male’s
domination and female subordination as prevalent everywhere on this earth11. United states
provide her a space that was not available in England, there she was a colonial subject. She
also scrutinises the base where men take the burden to work and provide for women who sit
and enjoy women’s wealth. Ramabai challenges this idea and shows that the amount of
household chores that is done by women goes unnoticed and unaccounted where she slogs for
sixteen to seventeen hours per day. if this work is not done by them it would require two to
three servants to complete that work. So the hypothesis that wife should be obliged to her
9
The nationalist resolution of women’s question was mainly initiated by Hindu reformers as they were
the first to grasp its essence. For a long time Muslims were unresponsive to the British colonizing
process.
10
Meera KosambiPandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. , (New Delhi,Oxford
University Press: 2000)15
11
Ibid,150

34
husband for feeding her should be nullified when women if they become aware come to
reassert her position in society12. Her stay in U.S.A gave her an opportunity to critically look
at British government actions that came in form of Rakhmabai judgement. After this
judgement she hits out bitterly at the collision of colonial government and the male
population of India in crushing women’s rights. She had accused the English government of
resorting to double standards by claiming that they could not interfere in religious matters
when it came to providing relief to women but of doing precisely that when an issue affected
their own interest. ‘ I wonder if such outrageous acts of English government could be excused
in heaven as they have praised to please males of our country at the cost of women’s rights
and happiness’ ‘It is false to expect any justice from English government where government
has proved to be tyrant’13. She also scorns over the fact that christanity does not treats women
well. She says that ‘The condition of women is not identical among all the communities
which call themselves Christian. All peoples, like the Russians, Italians, Greeks, French,
Swiss, Finnish, English, and Americans, are Christians; but there is a wide difference in the
condition of their women. To claim to be the follower of a religion and to actually practice
that religion are two very different things. Almost all the people in this country call
themselves Christians, but not all of them practice the teachings of Christ. The doctrine which
Christ taught and the practices He propounded did not differentiate between men and women;
but that egalitarian view is not acceptable to everyone here’14
Forging international Unity and challenging Patriarchy
Ramabai was the champion of women’s rights. She had unearthed the main reason for
women’s subjugation. This was related to patriarchal structures that were enforced very
strongly through religious textbooks. Ramabai said that this kind of subjugation is prevalent
in all religions. This came through her experience of her conversion to Christianity whereby
she saw that secondary treatment was meted out nuns compared to bishops. Their like
Hinduism was differential treatment between males and females. That is why she got
disenchanted and had argued with the tenants of Christianity. This is why she wanted to train
and enable women with certain rights especially education so that they could analyse and
liberate themselves from the clutches of slavery. In this process Ramabai became champion
of women’s civil and political rights and sought for unity to tackle patriarchy. Pandita
Ramabai while travelling in America had disagreed with Vivekanand who was her
contemporary who was talking about the superior spiritual essence that India had. While on
the other hand Ramabai was criticising this superior spiritual essence that was enshrined in
religious text books and had become the root cause of women’s degradation. This far
reaching understanding that Ramabai had was the result of her personal experience and
critical thinking that she developed with her education.
3.6 Conclusion
Ramabai hits at unequal relationship prevalent between men and women and in turn helped in
arousing feminist consciousness in the following manner: Firstly she propagated education
for women so that it could push them out of ignorance of patriarchy and help those making

12
Uma Charkravarti, Pandita Ramabai once more .( New Delhi, Crtical quest:2014)31
13
Ibid,27
14
Meera KosambiPandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. , (New Delhi,Oxford
University Press: 2000)198

35
informed choices. Secondly she tried to challenge social evils inflicted on women by
questioning the pubic/Private dichotomy that is responsible for women degradation. Thirdly
she pointed at gender discrimination being the problem of all over the world. Ramabai’s
central concern was to unearth the pathetic condition of Indian women. It was the result of
age old Shastras and dogmatic literature that had kept women under the shackles of
patriarchy. As a result she tried to challenge it by making them self-reliant and educated. For
this she wanted outside intervention especially to stop Child Marriage. Ramabai’s
contribution lies in her ability to connect governments, patriarchies and colonialism which
was unique to her time and which had laid the foundations of multiple layers of patriarchy.
As a result she is distant to what men were saying at that time for women’s upliftment. Self-
reliance and Education were two cardinal principles that could emancipate women. For this
she wanted outside help as the education that was imparted to women in the country tried to
confirm to a benevolent and dependent image of women thus helping keep the patriarchal
structures intact. She tried to challenge it by trying to provide alternate knowledge system in
her Sarda Sadan and later Mukti Sadan. That is why she proclaims 1832 as golden year for
women who broke their chains when for first time they were allowed entry to educational
institutions. ‘she says that brave attempts of women had succeeded in turning the tide and
making them self-determining beings’. She also counters the argument of women’s natural
sphere of domesticity in opposition to public sphere of employment. She advocates for
women political and legal rights. Ramabai nuisance understanding of patriarchy as an
institution that requires detailed analysis could be seen from her understanding where she
states that task for emancipating women from their present condition was more difficult than
abolishing slavery because harm done by slavery is visible to all. However harm done by
slavery of women is generally not noticed. It is like a mysterious heart disease that is
invisible even as it destroys the heart of human society. It is indeed heartening that Ramabai’s
unravelling of women drudgery to her subjugation based on biased scriptural readings that
pitted women was lost to history. In fact it is diverted towards criticising her as she had
converted to christanity and was trying to raise funds for her destitute home. It is indeed an
irony that Ramabai’s writings which while discussing structures of domination had also
provide agency to women to emancipate them were lost.

3.7 Practice Questions

Q.1. Discuss views of Pandita Ramabai’s on marriage as a choice that needs to be exercised
independently
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Q.2. In what ways does Pandita Ramabai wants intervention by colonial authorities to
improve the condition of women?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

36
Q.3. how does patriarchy in India work to limit the freedom of women in India?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Q.4. how can women of India be emancipated?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
3.8 References
 Charkravarti,Uma (2014) Pandita Ramabai Once More.Crtical Quest: New delhi
 Kosambi, Meera (2000) Pandita Ramabai through her own words: Selected works.
Oxford University Press: New Delhi
 Pearson, Gail ( 1990) “The Female Intelligentsia in Segregated Society: Bombay A
Case Study,” in Michael Allen and S.N. Mukherjee(ed.) Women in India and
Nepal.Sterling Publishers: New Delhi
 Ramabai, Pandita (2000) Stri Dharam Niti Translated in Meera Kosambi Pandita
Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. Oxford University Press: New
Delhi
 ---------The Cry of Indian Women (2000) Translated in Meera Kosambi Pandita
Ramabai through her own Words: Selected Works. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press
 ---------High Caste Hindu Women 2000) Translated in Meera Kosambi Pandita
Ramabai through her own words: Selected works. Oxford University Press: New
Delhi

37
 Unit-4

Vivekananda: Ideal Society

Anju

4. Structure
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Influences on Vivekananda
4.4 Socio-Religious and Political Ideas
4.5 Social Reforms
4.6 Vivekananda on Nationalism
4.7 Perception on Society and Social Institutions
4.8 Varna System and Social Stratification
4.9 Ideal Society
4.9.1 Analysis of ‘Ideal Society’
4.9.2 Importance of Caste
4.9.3 Social Westernization
4.10 Summary
4.11 Practice Questions
4.12 Multiple Choice Questions
4.1 Objectives
One of the primary objectives of this unit is to provide an overview of Vivekananda’s
philosophical ideas. Swami Vivekananda, a great patriotic, dynamic philosopher, and a
fervent religious preacher, is remembered in history as the one who awoke the people of India
from their age-old slumber and instilled in them a new life and energy. With his profound
vision, he dedicated his life to the spiritual unity and upliftment of humanity. Vivekananda’s
ideas are organised in an academic and systematic manner. The unit gives students a rough
concept of their train of thinking.
4.2 Introduction
Swami Vivekananda was a great person, a teacher, a reformer, a social activist, a thinker, a
saint, and a tremendous world changer. All of these characteristics were present in one
person, who had created them on his own. He was a prominent social reformer and activist
who was born in Kolkata on January 12th, 1863. Vishwanath Dutt was his father, and

38
Bhuvaneshwari Devi was his mother. Narendranath Dutt was his childhood name. His father
was a Bengali lawyer who was also a novelist and philanthropist.
His education was accomplished at Kolkata’s Scottish Church College. He had a
bachelor’s degree in arts and was an average student. He was, nonetheless, a unique child
with spiritual thoughts and a wealth of knowledge. He had a deep understanding of Hindu
scriptures (Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Bhagwat geeta etc.) His statements were powerful
and thought-provoking. He is a Karma, Bhakti, Raj, and Jnana yoga practitioner. He excelled
in music, gymnastics, and philosophy as well. He is well-versed in western philosophy and
history. “Have you seen god?” he questioned Shri Ramakrishna Paramhans when they met in
1881. “Yes, I have seen Him, just as I see you here,” Shri Ramakrishna answered. Finally,
someone who could reassure him that God exists based on his own personal experience. He
prepared him for the future by training him.
Shri Ramakrishna gave Narendra his own strength before he died, telling him, “By the
might of the power transferred by me, great things will be done by you; only then will you
return to where you came.” Following Shri Ramakrishna’s death in 1886, Narendra
established the Ramakrishna Brotherhood. Narendra journeyed across the country beginning
in 1890. In July 1890, he set out for the Himalayas in search of solitude. He continued to
roam across the countryside, where the ancient glory of India flashed before his eyes, and he
witnessed poverty and youth’s weakness. He prostrated himself with tremendous emotion
before the image of Mother Kumari at a temple in Kanyakumari at the end of his voyage.
Then he swam across the sea to a rock off the coast of South, where he sat for the entire night
in deep meditation.
During the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth,
Swami Vivekananda’s inspiring personality was well-known in both India and America. At
the 1893 Parliament of Religions in Chicago, where he represented Hinduism, an unknown
Indian monk rose to prominence. His enormous understanding of Eastern and Western
culture, as well as his deep spiritual insight, fervent eloquence, intelligent discussion, broad
human sympathy, colourful personality, and attractive figure, made him alluring to a wide
range of Americans. After more than half a century, people who saw or heard Vivekananda
even once cherish his memory.
Vivekananda’s aim in America was to interpret India’s spiritual culture, particularly
in its Vedantic context. He also attempted to deepen the religious consciousness of
Americans through the Vedanta philosophy’s rational and humanistic principles. He became
India’s spiritual representative in America, pleading passionately for greater understanding
between India and the New World so that a healthy synthesis of East and West, religion and
science might be achieved.
Vivekananda is recognized as the modern India’s patriot saint and an arouser of the
country’s dormant national consciousness in his own motherland. To Hindus, he advocated
the notion of a religion that gives strength. The specific type of devotion he advocated for the

39
Indians, who were devoted to the rites and myths of their old faith, was service to man as the
visible embodiment of the Godhead. Many Indian politicians have publicly expressed their
gratitude to Swami Vivekananda.
The Swami had a national and international mission. He worked to promote peace and
universal fraternity on the spiritual foundation of the Vedantic Oneness of existence, as a
lover of humanity. Vivekananda was a high-ranking yogi who had a direct and intuitive
experience of Reality. He got his ideas from that unfailing well of insight, and he often
expressed them in poetry’s soul-stirring language.
Vivekananda’s mind, like Ramakrishna’s, had a natural desire to rise beyond the
world and lose itself in contemplation of the Absolute. However, another part of his
personality bled when he saw human misery in both the East and the West. It appears that his
thought was constantly oscillating between God’s contemplation and man’s duty, with little
respite. Whatever the case may be, God has chosen service to man as his duty on earth in
response to a greater call, and this choice has endeared him to many in the West, particularly
Americans.
In the course of his thirty-nine-year life (1863-1902), of which only ten were devoted
to public activities-and those, too, in the midst of acute physical suffering-he left for posterity
his four classics: Jnana-Yoga, Bhakti-Yoga, Karma-Yoga, and Raja-Yoga, all of which are
exceptional treatises on Indian philosophy. He also delivered countless lectures, wrote
inspired letters in his own hand to his many friends and disciples, authored several poetry,
and served as a spiritual mentor to the many seekers who sought his guidance. He also
founded the Ramakrishna Order of Monks, which is India’s most distinguished religious
order today. It is dedicated to spreading Hindu spiritual culture not only in the Swami’s home
country of India, but also in America and other areas of the world.
Swami Vivekananda referred to himself as a “condensed India” at one point. His life
and ideas have enormous worth for comprehending Asia’s thinking in the West. The Swami
was dubbed the “paragon of Vedantists” by Harvard philosopher William James. The
prominent Orientalists of the nineteenth century, Max Müller and Paul Deussen, regarded
him with true affection and respect.
4.3 Influences on Vivekananda
Vivekananda’s worldview arose from his acute knowledge of the social, religious, and
economic situations of the Indian masses. He saw that orthodoxy, superstitions, a lack of
confidence in spiritual values, and other societal ills are caused, at least in part, by orthodoxy,
superstitions, and a loss of faith in spiritual values. Vivekananda was greatly influenced by
Hindu philosophy, particularly Vedanta, which earned him the title of Vedantist, as well as
Buddhist philosophy. Along with his Indian inspirations, he also carried the influence of
Christianity in his mind. Other factors played a role as well. For a period, he was influenced
by the Brahmo Samaj. He also appears to have been affected by Dayananda Saraswati’s
personality. Vivekananda drew inspiration from the Gita on a regular basis. However, it must

40
be acknowledged that his master Swami Ramakrisha Paramahamsa had the greatest
influence. Swami Ramakrishna revealed the spiritual path to Vivekananda, unravelled and
opened his soul, inundated his soul with spiritual consciousness, and eliminated the ignorance
that impeded and veiled the wave and tide of the boundless spirit inside him. David Hume,
Kant, Hegel, Comte, J.S. Mill, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer’s evolutionism
fascinated him.
4.4 Socio-Religious and Political Ideas
Vivekananda was Vedanta’s global spokesman. Swami Vivekananda’s idea of Vedanta is his
abiding spiritual legacy. Swami Vivekananda’s beliefs on nation-building in India are
preserved in his notions of “Practical Vedanta” and “Man-Making.” Men are taught in
Vedanta to have faith in themselves initially. The purpose, according to him, is to manifest
this Divinity within by managing both external and internal nature. He advocated yoga as a
practical application of Vedanta philosophy. It raises religion to the level of spiritualism, at
which point all faiths, texts, and idolatry appear to be various faces of the same truth.
Swamiji believed that religious connections hold Indians together, and that only a spiritual
elevation of religion could bring people together transcending faiths, castes, communities,
and sub-national and ethnic identities. Then, and only then, will all Indians be united by a
single sense of patriotism. Swami Vivekananda’s Neo-Vedantism refers to the new Vedanta
as opposed to the old traditional Vedanta produced by Shankaracharya. Swamiji firmly
believed in Vedantic socialism. Without a question, Vivekananda was proud of the country’s
historical legacy, but he was not an illogical revivalist who appreciated everything that had
come down from the history. To him, India was equated with the people, and the people were
equated with the masses. Poverty alleviation, illiteracy eradication, restoration of human
dignity, freedom from fear, access to spiritual and secular knowledge for all, regardless of
caste or class, and the abolition of all monopolies, religious, economic, intellectual, social,
and cultural – all of these were derived from his practical Vedanta or Vedantic socialism.
Vivekananda’s Vedantic socialism is based on his progressive educational views, which are
more modern than those of the professional educationists who shaped modern Indian
education. He has emphasised the significance of universal literacy as a prerequisite for mass
uplift and development since the outset of his mission.
Despite emphasising the traditional virtues of chastity and family life for women,
Vivekananda was adamantly opposed to their subjugation. Vivekananda’s Vedantic socialism
is apparent in his efforts to instil a new social service focus in India’s traditional religions.
4.5 Social Reforms
Swami Vivekananda was a prominent social reformer who lived in the nineteenth century. He
preached the abolition of all forms of exploitation as a social reformer. He has participated in
numerous social initiatives in order to address societal issues. He believes that three issues
are impeding our progress: education, poverty, and castism. Swami is revered as the messiah
of the oppressed. Swamiji was the first modern Indian leader to speak up for the

41
underprivileged and oppressed. He travelled extensively throughout the country to gain a
better understanding of their situation. He was convinced that the neglect and exploitation of
the poor was the primary reason of the Indians’ downfall. Religion, according to Swami
Vivekananda, will be equally intellectual, emotionally charged, mystic, and conducive to
action. Worship is a social activity, and faith is a social force. Religion is a social institution,
worship is a social activity, and faith is a social force. Swamiji shifted religion’s focus from
God to Man, or rather, God in Man. Sri Ramkrishna had taught him that serving others was
the same as serving God. Swamiji built his social service programme around this principle.
The best form of worship, he preached, was to see God in the poor, the oppressed, the sick,
and the ignorant, and to serve them.
In the world parliament, he was the first Indian to represent India and Hinduism.
Swamiji’s lectures at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, as well as his
following work in America and England, raised Indian status around the world. Swamiji
demonstrated the universal applicability and significance of Indian philosophy and spiritual
culture in resolving many of the issues that plague modern life. Thousands of people in the
west were able to appreciate Indian philosophy and culture because to him. He believed that
education may help to bring about socioeconomic transformation. He desired that the
common man in this country get both moral and secular education. Vivekananda created the
Ramakrishna Mission—the organ for social service—on May 1, 1897 in Calcutta. The
Ramakrishna Mission’s values are founded on Karma Yoga. Swamiji established the
groundwork for religious concord as well as religious and scientific unity. “Religion is not for
empty stomachs,” he often emphasised with his Guru, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.
On January 12, Swami Vivekananda’s birth anniversary, also known as Swami
Vivekananda Jayanti, is commemorated. National Youth Day is also observed on this day.
Vivekananda was convinced that for the youth, life is more important than money. Their goal
is to break free from the shackles of established society and revolt against anything that
promotes inequity, injustice, mental slavery, and other forms of backwardness. Vivekananda
encouraged young people to come up and join the struggle for political, economic, and
spiritual freedom. The clamorous exhortation of Swami Vivekananda to the Indian young,
“Awake, arise, and stop not till the objective is accomplished,” is resonating throughout
India, reawakening social consciousness and rekindling damp spirits. Because the youth
lacked possessions, he believed they may be true and dedicated souls. They are willing to
give up everything for a worthy cause.
4.6 Vivekananda on Nationalism
Swami Vivekananda was a real patriot in both heart and mind. He felt that each nation’s life
is governed by a single all-encompassing principle. “Each nation, like music, has a core note,
a central theme, around which all others revolve,” he remarked. Everything else is
subordinate to the concept of each country. Religion is the central theme in India.
Vivekananda believed that Indian nationalism needed to be founded on a solid foundation of
post-historical history. In the past, India’s innovation was primarily and dominantly

42
manifested in the realm of religion. In India, religion has served as a creative force for unity
and stability. When India’s governmental authority became sloppy and weak, it gave birth to
a force of rehabilitation. As a result, he declared that national life should be organised around
religious ideas. He restored the timeless things of the Vedas and Upanishads to promote the
nation’s progress and faith in its individuality as a follower of this notion.
Though Western influence is credited with the rise of nationalism, Swami
Vivekananda’s nationalism is firmly based in Indian spirituality and morality. He made
significant contributions to the concept of nationalism in colonial India and was instrumental
in guiding India into the twentieth century. Swami Vivekananda’s spiritualism is linked to his
nationalism. He attributed India’s rebirth to the country’s long-standing spiritual culture.
“Each nation has a destiny to fulfil, each nation has a message to send, and each nation has a
purpose to complete,” he stated. As a result, we must comprehend our own race’s mission,
the destiny it must fulfil, the place it must occupy in the march of nations, and the role it must
play in promoting race harmony.” His nationalism is based on the two basic elements of
Indian spiritual culture, Humanism and Universalism. He advised individuals to get rid of
self-inflicted bonds and the misery that come with them first. Vivekananda was a devoted
patriot with a deep affection for his motherland. He was the epitome of patriotic enthusiasm.
A country is made up of individuals. As a result, Vivekananda emphasised the importance of
cultivating noble values such as manliness, a sense of human dignity, and honour in all
people. Individualistic attributes have to be balanced with a strong feeling of neighbourly
affection. It was nonsense to talk about national togetherness and fraternity without a deep
feeling of selfless devotion.
His nationalism is not materialistic, but completely spiritual, according to him, and he
considers it to be the source of all strength in Indian life. Swami Vivekananda’s nationalism,
unlike western nationalism, is built on religion, which is the lifeblood of the Indian people.
His nationalism is built on a foundation of deep concern for the masses, freedom and equality
through which one expresses self, spiritual integration of the world on the basis of universal
brotherhood, and “Karmyoga,” a system of ethics for achieving political and spiritual
freedom through selfless service. “I am an Indian, and every Indian is my brother,” he
declared. “My brother is the ignorant Indian, the poor and penniless Indian, the Brahmin
Indian, the outcast Indian.” “The Indian is my brother, the Indian is my life, the gods and
goddesses of India are my God, India’s society is the cradle of my childhood, the pleasure
garden of my youth, the sacred heaven, the Varanasi of my old age,” says the author. “India’s
land is my highest heaven; India’s good is my good.”
Vivekananda was a history lover. After examining the historical evidence, he arrives
to the conclusion that society is ruled by four major social forces in succession: knowledge,
military power, wealth, and physical labour. Four classes control these forces: Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. He emphasised the significance of each varna in social
history and predicted that they would govern one after the other. After examining the merits
and disadvantages of the three types of norms, Vivekananda predicted that Sudra rule would

43
be implemented in the near future, and that no one would be able to fight it. At the same time,
he predicted that general education would spread during the Sudra period, but that the
number of geniuses and talented people would be limited. Sudras have been condemned in
society at various times throughout history. They were robbed of all educational chances. If a
Sudra is absorbed into a higher social class, he will lose touch with his native society and
may not feel the need to contribute to its uplift.
Swamiji was a strong proponent of women’s liberation. There are two major evils in
India. Women are being trampled on, and the impoverished are being ground down by caste
rules. Manu has stated yet again that God has rewarded those families whose women are
happy and well cared for. Western countries treat these women admirably, which explains
why they are so rich, well-educated, free, and enthusiastic. However, in our country, we have
observed the absolute opposite, namely, that our country is the weakest and most backward of
all countries. Women have always been treated with respect in any country that has achieved
greatness. That country and that nation have never been great because they do not respect
women. Their education must be eye-opening in every way.
This feeling of national integration derives from the fact that India is a country and
Indian is a nation. The main qualities of Indian culture, according to Swami Vivekananda, are
unity in diversity. A nation is defined by its race, religion, language, and government. In
India, racial, linguistic, social, and national barriers all dissolve in the face of religion’s
unifying influence. Nothing is more important to the Indian mind than religion, and bargains
are the lifeblood of the country. The message of nationalism and universality preached by
Swami Vivekananda is still very important in today’s globe. People of all castes, religions,
races, genders, and nationalities are welcome. Human society will have to wait generations
for a leader like Swami Vivekananda to emerge.
4.7 Perception on Society and Social Institutions
The institution of society is divine. Though drawn from Vedantik philosophy, Vivekananda’s
idea of society aims to incorporate both spiritualistic and materialistic conceptions of man
and society; it is both individualistic and socialistic. Vivekananda, who believes in man’s
divine essence, aims to establish a continuity between society, culture, and civilization, much
like the wick, oil, and flame. This is a close approximation to a holistic perspective of man
and society. “The three great manifestations of spirituality are love, sacrifice, and
selflessness.
In India, love and sacrifice are considered to be the foundations of society. According
to him, there is an organic connection between the individual and society in Indian
philosophy, and hence the good of one is dependent on the good of the other. The whole of
several individuals is referred to as samashti (the entire), whereas each individual is referred
to as Vyashti (a part). Vyashti is human beings, while samashti is society. It is a collection of
many people whose self-sacrifice is essential for its survival. His happiness is derived from

44
the enjoyment of others. This structure’s backbone is religion. The core theme of social unity
is dharma, or religion.
”The Western man is born individualistic,” Vivekananda said, “but the Hindu is born
socialistic–entirely socialistic.” The Hindu religion requires that the individual submit to the
necessities of society and that these needs govern his personal behaviour. As a result of these
two perspectives, the West has given society more freedom, allowing it to flourish and
become more dynamic, whereas Hindu civilization has become increasingly restricted in
every manner. Because the aims are different in the East and the West, life differs. “The
objective of the West is individual independence, the language of money-making education,
the means of politics; the goal of India is Mukti, the language of the Veda, the means of
renunciation,” he asserts. The emphasis on spirituality in India, strengthened by renunciation,
has resulted in a culture distinct from that of the West.
According to Indian belief, society is a holy institution rather than a human
construction. According to the Indian Monotheistic Doctrine of Creation, the universe of
souls and matter is a cosmos, not a chaos, and it is also totally teleological or purposeful.
Society, like nature, is a flawless mechanism. It’s a complete organic whole, a loving, living
union. Its foundation is religion, its goal is spiritualism, and its tools are biblical injunctions.
“It is neither a political organisation, an economic entity, or a prudential concern at all,” he
argues. His understanding of society is consistent with the ideals put out in the Rig Vedic
‘Purusa-Sukta,’ in which the entire community is conceived as a universal or social Man.
Society is merely a reflex in His eyes, and the many occupational groups are His varied
limbs. This Great Man, or Purusa, is shown as a ‘thousand headed, thousand-eyed, and
thousand-legged’ being who reigns over all living beings and expands across the entire
planet. The four sorts of people can be found in any community, yet in Hindu civilization, the
classification grew cemented through time as some varnas claimed exclusive privileges and
superiority over others. It should be mentioned, however, that the varna categorization was
formed on the basis of people’s agreeable vocational temperaments and aptitudes, not to
maintain the supremacy or advantages of some individuals due to their birth and genetics. An
ideal kind of society, according to Vivekananda, is one in which everyone can hold, practise,
and live the greatest truth.
4.8 Varna System and Social Stratification
“The goal of societal harmony and synthesis represented in the philosophy of Varna (caste)
system of ancient India” inspires Swami Vivekananda. “Caste is a very good thing,” he says.
We want to stick to the caste system. There is no such thing as a country without caste. In
India, we have progressed from caste to the point where there are no castes.” To him, caste is
a tool for assisting everyone in achieving the status of real Brahmin. A Brahmin is someone
who has conquered their own ego. Being a Brahmin entails spiritual enlightenment.
Vivekananda was opposed to the ancient caste system being abolished. He proposed that the
caste system, in its current stage of degeneration, be eliminated. “From the time of the
Upanisads to now, practically all of our great teachers have wanted to break through the

45
barriers of caste, i.e. caste in its deteriorated state, not the original structure,” he said. He
believed that the caste system’s basic concept had provided a valuable service to society. It
was the most illustrious social establishment. Caste should not be eliminated, but rather
adjusted.
The new approach, according to Vivekananda, is a development of the old. “Within
the existing structure is life enough for the re-building of two hundred thousand new ones,”
he believes. The traditional orthodox Brahmanical teaching of adhikaravada was criticised by
Vivekananda. This philosophy advocates for the Sudras to be denied access to Vedantic
knowledge. This undemocratic dogma was also followed by Samkara. Vivekananda, on the
other hand, was a staunch supporter of spiritual equality. He was a harsh opponent of India’s
current socioeconomic system, which is founded on unequal privileges. To him, society is a
hierarchical structure. Man lives in groups and fulfils his own role based on his abilities.
Swami Vivekananda’s place in India’s Renaissance, and specifically Bengal’s
Renaissance, is self-evident. His biography and the elements that influenced the creation of
his philosophy are fascinating and worth revisiting.
4.9 Ideal Society
The ‘Ideal Society’ must first and foremost be understood in terms of Practical Vedanta.
Practical Vedanta, as taught by Swami Vivekananda, is a two-dimensional theory. His
Practical Vedanta can be rendered and understood in both abstract and concrete forms,
spiritual and sociological at the same time. In fact, according to Rustau, Vivekananda was
“the first among Indian thinkers who made social philosophy an important element of his
philosophical theory.” He goes on to suggest that Vivekananda was the first person in the
history of Indian philosophy to sketch out a picture of the “Ideal Society,” at least in broad
strokes. According to Rustau, he was also the first Indian to construct a social utopia.
Vivekananda’s vision of the “Ideal Society” is examined. In order to grasp
Vivekananda’s vision of ‘Ideal Society,’ there are two significant obstacles to overcome.
One, Vivekananda’s opinions and ideas about his vision of the “Ideal Society” were literally
strewn over his publications. Two, many of Swami Vivekananda’s biographers and followers
did not devote much attention to his concept of ‘Ideal Society.’ Nonetheless, several
biographers have established that Vivekananda imagined such a society, as evidenced by the
limited exposition of Vivekananda’s views on society. Among Vivekananda’s biographers,
Abraham Stephen, Hiltrud Rustau, and V. Brodov have dealt extensively with this ideal, in
contrast to the other biographers. In addition to these writers, an attempt will be made to
examine the presentation of this concept by other biographers who, if not directly,
acknowledged it.
It is logical to think that attempting to define and interpret the notion of ‘ideal’ will
aid our understanding and analysis of Vivekananda’s ‘Ideal Society.’ ‘Ideas’ and ‘ideals’ are
two significant words that are intertwined, and both meanings have a similar meaning
inevitably. An idea might simply refer to the substance of cognition or an intention. On the

46
other hand, ideal can refer to a mental image or conception of something desired, such as a
goal. An ideal, on the other hand, is typically given in abstract terms, whereas ideas can
become ideal and are typically conveyed as a notion or shape. As a result, an ideal could be a
concept that one aspires to achieve or realise.
After grasping the meaning of the term ideal, the next step would be to research
Vivekananda’s perspective on society. V. K. Arora succinctly describes Swami
Vivekananda’s concept of society and its characteristics as follows: Religion is the backbone
of society, which is a Divine creation made up of various individuals. Its characteristics
include the importance of self-sacrifice for happiness, the gradual shift to becoming “one”
with society, and the eventual result of human relations, cooperatively shared satisfaction.
We can deduce an important part of Vivekananda’s individualistic and socialistic perspective
of society from this quotation. Furthermore, religion, or, to put it another way, spirituality,
plays a significant role in it. According to Vivekananda, societies should be moulded around
Truth, not the other way around. Human society’s evolution, according to Vivekananda, must
be informed and guided by spiritual principles. He also believes that each society experiences
its own ups and downs. He explains, “The history of nations is like this: they rise and fall;
after the rise, they fall; after the fall, they rise again, with more power.” This motion
continues indefinitely. A similar movement exists in the religious sector. There is a rise and a
decline in every nation’s spiritual life.
4.9.1 Analysis of ‘Ideal Society’
This offers one an idea of Vivekananda’s perspective on society in general and nationalism in
particular. With this viewpoint in mind, we will proceed to examine the ‘Ideal Society.’
Understanding caste, as stated by Swami Vivekananda, is a good place to start. To make
things easier, Vivekananda split society into two castes: the upper caste (Brahmin, Kshatriya,
and Vaishya) and the lower caste (Shudra). He defends his position by claiming that the three
superior castes have dominated the planet in succession throughout history. To paraphrase
Vivekananda, “Human society is in turn dominated by the four castes—priests, soldiers,
traders, and labourers.” Priests (Brahmins) develop the mind since it is through the mind that
they rule. The military (Kshatriya) rule is dictatorial and ruthless, yet it is not exclusive, and
arts and social culture reach its pinnacle during this time. Following that is the commercial
(Vaishya) rule. Its silent crushing and blood-sucking force is terrifying. Its advantage is that,
because the merchant visits everywhere, he is an excellent transmitter of ideas, but culture
tends to disintegrate. Last but not least, the Shudra (labourer) rule. The distribution of
physical comforts will be one of its benefits; one of its drawbacks (perhaps) will be the
diminishing of culture. Ordinary education will be widely distributed, but outstanding minds
will become increasingly rare.
He believes that all three top castes have had their turn. And now it was the Shudras’
turn to rule over society. He believes that the other rules had been tried but found
unsatisfactory, and that it was time for the Shudras to have their turn, if for no other reason
than novelty. Thus, Vivekananda conceptualized the ‘Ideal Society’ in this perspective.

47
However, in his vision, the ‘Ideal Society’ would not be a choice between any of the four
periods, but rather a summation of all four. As Vivekananda puts it, “if it is feasible to build a
state in which the priestly knowledge, military culture, commercial distributive, and ideal
equality of the previous can all be retained intact, without their evils, it will be an ideal state.”
4.9.2 Importance of Caste
This demonstrates that Vivekananda was aware of the existence of caste, as well as its
significance. Caste was the foundation of his ‘Ideal Society.’ However, for him, caste is a
social habit, an offshoot of political institutions, and a hereditary trade guild, which is in
opposition to Vedanta philosophy. In Vivekananda’s ‘Ideal Society,’ there will be just one
caste, because the lower will be elevated to the level of the higher. That is, all castes will be
promoted to the Brahmin’s highest degree. It also creates the notion that society should strive
to overcome the flaws of the four previous periods while maintaining the benefits of each.
The Brahmin is on one extreme end, and the Chandàla is on the other, with the goal of
elevating the Chandàla to Brahmin status. Knowledge of Sanskrit, according to Vivekananda,
is the finest way to eliminate caste inequalities. He goes on to say that in India,
‘Brahminhood’ is the ideal of mankind. He goes on to clarify that this ideal refers to the
Brahmin of spiritual culture and renunciation, the Brahmin-ness in which worldliness is
absent and pure wisdom prevails. Vivekananda claims in his ‘Ideal Society’ that privileges of
power, wealth, knowledge, birth, or spirituality will have no place.
Within this concept of a “Ideal Society,” Vivekananda also saw the presence of ideal
men and women as essential. Ràma, the heroic era’s ancient god, the epitome of truth and
morality, the ideal son, husband, parent, and, above all, the ideal king, he says. Sità is one-of-
a-kind; she epitomises the ideal Indian woman, as all Indian notions of a flawless woman
have evolved from Sità’s single life. All patience and suffering are purer than purity itself.
She, the ever-chaste and ever-pure wife, she the ideal of the people, the ideal of the gods, the
magnificent Sità, who experienced that life of misery without murmuring. The only option
for Indian women to grow and flourish is to follow in Sità’s footsteps. Here is an indication
that Vivekananda’s notion of the “Ideal Community” calls for the creation of a society in the
old Indian tradition, with attributes equivalent to those exhibited by Ràma and Sità, his
models. Thus, utilising religion as a driving force, the Swami attempted to build a foundation
for Indian society based on Hindu morality. Furthermore, the ‘Ideal Society’ must achieve the
ideal of unity.
However, Vivekananda also claims that combining the Greek mind, as represented by
external European energy, with Hindu spirituality would aid in the formation of an ideal
Indian civilization. Although religion is the only preoccupation of the Indian people,
Vivekananda believes that India must learn the conquest of exterior nature from Europe,
while Europe must learn the conquest of inner nature from India. There will be no Hindus or
Europeans when that happens; instead, there will be an ideal humanity. Vivekananda goes on
to say that the ideal society is one in which the Indian concept of spiritual integrity and the
Western concept of social advancement are combined. He appears to have understood social

48
liberty, democracy, and a dash of materialism by the Western concept of social development.
What we should have is what we don’t have, perhaps even what our forefathers didn’t have—
that which the Yavanas had; that which, propelled by the life-vibration of which, is erupting
in rapid succession from Europe’s great dynamo, the electric flow of that tremendous power
vivifying the entire world. We want that eagerness for independence, that spirit of self-
reliance, that unwavering fortitude, dexterity in action, unity of purpose, and a desire to
improve.
4.9.3 Social Westernization
These were the characteristics Vivekananda desired for his ‘Ideal Society.’ However, we
must remember that he was opposed to societal westernization. He stated that India should
develop in accordance with its traditions. In his efforts to achieve his ‘Ideal Society,’ he
makes valuable ideas that he believed would be sufficient to accomplish what he envisioned.
He required the practical realization of oneness via self-belief, self-assurance, compassion for
one’s fellow beings, and tolerance. Vivekananda desired this oneness, the primary goal of
Neo-Vedanta, as the first step. Second, he believed that raising the masses was another
necessary step in realising the ‘Ideal Society.’ He also remarked that the spirit of equality,
freedom, effort, and energy should be maintained while not compromising the religious
beliefs of the majority. Individuality will be restored to the masses. They will be educated.
Vivekananda believes that if they are educated, they will be able to detect the causes of social
oppression and see the hollowness of the so-called superiority of birth asserted by the upper
castes. As previously said, Vivekananda did not believe that the caste system was a
component of religion; rather, he wanted people to understand that it was a social institution
that was important to maintain stability. The third step advised by Vivekananda is the
incorporation of religious principles into society. He did not, however, neglect to add that
religion must be kept within its right boundaries and that society must be given freedom in
order to flourish.
4.10 Summary
Many social reformers in India work to transform people’s views. They had a difficult time
dealing with India’s revolution. Among them, Vivekananda continually demonstrated
solidarity with the socially vulnerable and oppressed. It was he, even before Gandhi, who
reworked and effectively used the earlier theological idiom of God abiding in the lowly and
poor (daridranarayan). Societal philosophy is concerned with social ills. It is the
responsibility of social philosophy to provide principles for eradicating these social ills so
that every individual in society can live respectfully and peacefully. Vivekananda’s ideology
arose primarily in response to the ills of Indian society at that time. The socioeconomic
situation in India at the time of Swami Vivekananda was grave. Poverty, superstition, sati,
and other issues were prevalent during the period. Furthermore, the British ruled the country
at the time. The British control had some positive characteristics, such as the development of
the telegraph and railway, but also wrecked the economy of the country.

49
 With a life span of fewer than forty years, Swami Vivekananda was indeed an epoch
maker, encouraging his brothers to combat poverty, illiteracy, superstition, untouchability,
priestcraft, and tyranny of the wise. In his travels from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari, he
interacted with people of all social groups, eating and sleeping with them, and sharing their
joys and sorrows. His heart throbbed with the masses, and he found himself embarrassed as a
result of their humiliation. He was a harsh critic of the conventional brahmanical caste
structure, and he saw ‘untouchability’ as a sort of upper-class mental illness.
Swami Vivekananda is widely regarded as the greatest patriot-monk of all time. He is simply
credited with displaying India’s soul to the rest of the world. He is primarily known as a
Hindu spokesman. The spiritual aspect of his personality appears to have clearly triumphed
over the social. The “Vivekananda” appears to have drowned under the weight of the
“Swami.” The universality and harmony of world religions was a recurring theme in
Vivekananda’s talks. Swami Vivekananda instilled a sense of national pride in all Indians.
Swamiji explained the importance of old Indian culture in today’s world.
4.11 Exercise
1. Briefly discuss Swami Vivekananda’s ideas about reforming the Indian society.
2. Discuss Swami Vivekananda’s ideas about caste system.
3. Explain the influence of Ramakrishna Paramahans on Swami Vivekananda.
4. Discuss the contribution of Swami Vivekananda to modern Indian Political thought.
5. Illustrate Swami Vivekananda’s ideas about nationalism and religion.
6. Discuss the ideas of Swami Vivekananda on “Ideal Society”.
4.12 Multiple Choice Questions
1. Vivekananda “is the maker of modern India”. Who said this?
a) Rabindranath Tagore
b) Jawaharlal Nehru
c) C. Rajagoplachari
d) Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
2. The Founder of Ramakrishna Mission, which is based on the principles of practical
Vedanta was:
a) Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa
b) Swami Vivekanada
c) Swami Ygananda
d) Swami Brahmanada

50
 3. Which of these adjectives has been most widely used to describe Swami
Vivekananda?
a) Punditji
b) Vedantic Scientist
c) Mahatma of he masses
d) Shaheed Bhagat
4.13 References
1. B.N. Roy, “Traditions and Innovation in Indian Political Thought”, Ajanta Publishers,
Delhi, 1998, Page-282.
2. Nitish Sengupta, “Vivekananda’s Social and Economic Messages: The Continued
Relevance”, Yojona, New Delhi, 15th sep., 1993.
3. Hiltrud Rustau, ‘Swami Vivekananda’s Ideal Society and its Impact on Govind
Chandra Dev’ in Swami Vivekananda and the Modernization of Hinduism, edited by
William Radice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 264-280. Hereafter
Rustau, ‘Vivekananda’s Ideal Society’ in Modernization of Hinduism, ed. Radice.
4. V. K. Arora, The Social and Political Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda (Calcutta:
Punthi Pustak, 1968), p. 62. Hereafter, Arora, Social and Political Philosophy.
5. Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, p. 84. Hereafter, Complete Works.
6. G. R. S. Rao, ‘Vivekananda’s Socio- Political Relevance’ in Perspectives on
Ramakrishna–Vivekananda Vedanta Tradition, edited by M. Sivaramkrishna &
Sumita Roy (Hyderabad: Sterling Publishers, 1991), pp. 198-203. Hereafter,
Ramakrishna–Vivekananda Vedanta, eds., Sivaramkrishna & Roy.
7. Rustau, ‘Vivekananda’s Ideal Society’ in Modernization of Hinduism ed. Radice, pp.
264-280.
8. Bhole, Dr. Bhaskar Laxaman – Adhunik Bharatatil Rajkiya Vichar – Pimplapure and
company, Publishers, Nagpur, Second Edition, June 2003, pp. 894.
9. Swami Vivekananda - What religion is – Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata First edition
1972, 22nd impression May 2006. pp. 337.
10. Varma V. P. – Moden Indian Political Thought Vol. II – Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal
Educational Publishers, Agra, Tenth edition 1991, pp – 884.

51
 Unit-5

Gandhi: Swaraj
Manish Kumar

5. Structure
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Aims and Objectives
5.3 City and Village
5.4 Gram Swaraj
5.5 Critique of Industrialisation
5.6 Critique of Machinery
5.7 Conclusion
5.8 Bibliography
5.9 Practice Questions

5.1 Introduction
In the modern Indian political discourse, the sharp contrast between the urbanised west and
the poverty-stricken villages of India had been a constant reminder that both western
imperialism and its exploitative nature has kept multitudes of Indian people living in the
Indian villages in total servitude and destitution. The Indian situation is comparable to the
miserable conditions of the peasantry under the Czarist regime and with Gandhi’s intimate
knowledge of Tolstoy’s concerns and writings he was well acquainted with the pathetic
conditions of the peasantry of Czarist Russia. In the early twentieth century, in the
background of the rise of Japan and its psychological impact on a section of the Indian
intelligentsia and its nationalist leaders, Gandhi, in the Hind Swaraj (1909) categorically rules
out the applicability of that model in the Indian condition.
Famine was a regular feature during the British colonial rule and in this situation the
utmost necessity of rural reconstruction became an important component of the nationalist
discourse in the wake of the swadeshi movement in Bengal at the time of the Partition of
Bengal. Rabindranath Tagore wrote an important essay entitled Swadeshi Samaj(1904) in
which there was an appeal for self-help in reconstructing the villages and solve the acute
water shortage from which it suffers perennially. At this time there were lot of projections of
parallel nationalist self-supportive, educational, industrial and cooperative enterprises to
alleviate the miseries of the rural poor. However, none of these attempts had a comprehensive
plan of an alternative development strategy for rural reconstruction and to reduce the gulf
between the cities and the villages. Gandhi provided a philosophy of a village centred life
which he described as the gram swaraj.

52
5.2 Aims and Objectives
After reading this chapter, we will be able to understand:
 Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj
 Gandhi’s critique of industrialisation
 Gandhi’s criticism of Machinery
5.3 City and Village
Within the larger framework of Gandhi’s concern for majority alleviation he put the idea of
the gram swaraj at the very centre of his social, political and economic philosophy. Since the
overwhelming majority of Indians live in villages, Gandhi’s primary concern is to
concentrate on this important segment and provide a blueprint by which the face of rural
India would drastically change for the better. The cities, remarks Gandhi, do not represent
India. They are alien to it. He considers the cities as artificial, facilitating the exploitation by
the imperialist powers; of sharing the plunder of the villages with the imperialist powers. “I
regard the growth of cities as an evil thing. Unfortunate for mankind and the world,
unfortunate for England and unfortunate for India. The British have exploited India through
its cities. The latter have exploited the villages. The blood of the villages is the cement with
which the edifice of the cities is built.”
Writing in 1921, he points out that the cities are “brokers and commission agents for the
big houses of Europe, America and Japan. The cities have cooperated with the latter in the
bleeding process that has gone on for 200 years.”
Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of India are slowly sinking to
lifelessness. Little do they know that their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they
get for the work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are
sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the government established by law in
British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses…. I have no doubt whatsoever
that both England and town-dwellers in India will have to answer, if there is a God above for
this crime against humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history.
Gandhi provides an alternative of total rural reconstruction and rebuilding in the process
of which the entire Indian situation would change. He identifies the survival of the Indian
nation with that of the meaningful survival of the villages reviving the traditional ways and
means of the rural life which have degenerated because of the superstitious beliefs and
neglect of this aspect by western imperialism. He is conscious of the enormous gap that exists
between the villages and the cities in education, culture, medicine, recreation and
employment opportunities. The gulf increases and Gandhi wants to stop this process and
allow the village to grow and prosper. Even though he is very critical of the cities, he never
wants to eliminate them. He wants to reform them and place them in a natural setting.

53
Furthermore, though Gandhi does not provide for concrete picture of the city’s structure, he
makes three general suggestions:
(1) “the blood that is inflating the arteries of the cities run once again the blood vessels of
the villages”.
(2) The cities did not need to send its people back to the village, rather “they should re-
adjust their lives so as to cease to sponge upon the poor village folk and make to the
latter what reparation is possible, even at this late hour, by helping to resuscitate their
ruined economy” and
(3) “in my picture of the rural economy the cities would take their natural place and do not
appear as unnatural, congested sports or boils on the body politics, as they are today”.
Understanding the importance of the dynamics of power, Gandhi begins his argument
pleading for the empowerment of the small village communities which would derive
sustenance with cottage industries that would provide the economic bases of the rural society.
Emphasising the darker side of industrialisation which devastates the rural life and uproots
thousands of people from their natural habitat, the cottage industries would provide the
economic basis of a small community which is in a position to manage and to enhance the
quality of life and happiness as Gandhi is convinced that the fulfilment and happiness of
people is manifested when they live in small communities rather than in larger urbanised
rootless communities.
Gandhi wants the development of a new partnership between the villages and the cities, a
vision that Marx and Engels too had. He does not want prosperity in the cities at the expense
of the village, where the majority of the Indian population live. The villages are as important
as the cities, if not more. His views on industrialisation and modern technology might help us
to understand his extraordinary emphasis on the need for regenerating village life.
5.4 Gram Swaraj
Gandhi is a virulent critic of all models of western industrialisation as though they produce
material goods but are alien to our moral values. The village panchayat system and the village
republic could create both a participatory model of democracy and would also allow an
escape route to avoid the perils of western industrialisation. Gram Swaraj will be the
essential framework of this alternative model with the promotion of self-sufficiency in
providing the material conditions essential for fulfilling the needs of the individual and
enhance the elements of self-respect and pride in oneself. Gandhi is conscious that the
present-day conditions of the villages are far from the ideal that he desires and it is because of
this consciousness that he argues for a reformed rural setting where truth and nonviolence
would co-exist in a situation of harmony and promotion and practice of rural virtues of
cooperation and performance of duties. His close associate, J. C. Kumarappa coins the term
‘villagism’, which Gandhi gladly accepts as an essential framework of realising rural swaraj.

54
Gandhi desires a complete economic revival of India with satya and ahimsa as its foundation
and the credit for preparing a blueprint along these lines goes to Kumarappa.
The framework for the village swaraj is provided in two books of Kumarappa: Why the
village movement: A plea for village centred economic order and Capitalism, socialism and
villagism. The first book is considered as the first normative statement of Gandhian
economics and could be regarded as the manifesto of Gandhi’s economic vision. Kumarappa
is of the view that as economic autonomy for the individual is essential for freedom and that
as majority of Indians live in rural areas, the village economy has to be the basis of
India’ssocial well-being. In the rapid process of industrialisation and urbanisation it is
thecountrysidethat suffers the most. He observes that “there can be no industrialisation
without predation” and that agriculture was and is the greatest among all the occupations.
Writing about the impact of industry and agriculture on the natural world, Kumarappa states:
In case of agricultural civilisation, the system ordained by nature is not interfered with to
any great extent. If there is a variation at all, it follows a natural mutation. The agriculturalist
only aids nature or intensifies in a short time what takes places in nature in a long period,
Under the economic system of the industrial society we find variations from nature are very
violent in that a large supply of goods is produced irrespective of demand, and then the
demand is artificially created for goods by means of clever advertisements.
Kumarappa is against use of chemical fertilizers and desires the use of organic manure as
a way of ‘Economy of Permanence’ as against the man-made ‘Economy of Transience’. He
strongly favours the use of night soil as manure thereby converting human waste into wealth
and in overcoming the prejudices of caste. He criticises the British for their poor maintenance
of irrigation tanks and urges the conservation of ground water. He also favours small industry
as a means of resource preservation. He argues that we should make Mother Nature our great
teacher and never do anything that is contrary to her ways, for if we do that we will be
annihilated sooner or later. “Water from the sea rises as vapour and falls on land in refreshing
showers and returns back to the sea again ... A nation that forgets or ignores this fundamental
process in forming its institutions will disintegrate”. Kumarappa recognises the decay and
regeneration in the ‘cycle of life’ as a fundamental process in which all creatures cooperate.
Violence results if “this cycle is broken at any stage, at any time, consciously or
unconsciously”. He supports an economy that is close to the natural order as that is deeply
moral with well-defined rights and ethical obligations on every participant and contributes to
the welfare of all. Crucial to Kumarappa’s conception of an ideal society is the understanding
that the economic freedom holds the key to individual’s autonomy and that economic
freedom forms the basis for political and social freedom. A non-violent social organisation is
predicated on providing complete autonomy for every individual. The key to individual
autonomy lies in the nature and purpose of work; if work unleashes the creative energies in
the human being it would lead to happiness. He also realised centralisation as the primary
road block to individual autonomy and freedom.

55
 Gandhi clarifies that swaraj is self-rule and self-restraint grounded in the moral
autonomy of the individual. He sees an intimate link between swaraj and swadeshi or self-
reliance. “Swaraj for me means freedom for the meanest of my countrymen. I am not
interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from
any yoke whatsoever. I have no desire to exchange ‘king log’ for ‘king stork’… there is no
freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may be, holds in the
hollow of his hands the life, property and honour of millions of human beings. It is an
artificial, unnatural and uncivilized institution. The end of it is an essential preliminary of
Swaraj”.
5.5 Critique of Industrialisation
In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi severely criticises modern technology and the ill-effects of
modern industrialisation so much that he does not compromise with any of its forms. The
basic cause of human misery and the ‘sin’ of modern civilisation is the advent of technology
and industrialisation. This view apparently takes shape during his formative years with his
direct contact with the English process of modern industrialisation and his experiences in
South Africa. Charles Dickens, Karl Marx, Thomas Hill Green and the Fabian socialists
describe the horrors of the English capitalist industrial society. Towards the end of the 19th
century, while Gandhi was still in England, factory legislations and enlargement of franchise
ameliorated many of the evils of industrialisation. But they only diminished and did not
eliminate the major effects of industrialisation. Gandhi could easily grasp the dark side of
industrialisation. In the early 20th century, many thinkers started to emphasise that modern
industrial civilisation was not an unmixed blessing. The expressionist movement in
philosophy and art were clamouring against the miseries of the emerging industrial giants.
Philosophers like Bertrand Russell shared this anxiety. Eliot expressed it best in the following
lines:
We are the hollow men,
We are the hollow women;
Leaning together,
Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!
This revolt against the industrial revolution is represented in India by Tagore’s
conception of freedom and Gandhi’s denunciation of the West. Gandhi does not deny the
immense rise in productivity and the consequent rise in the standard of living in the West.
Hedoes, however, deny the claim that industrialisation, in its current form, advanced human
civilisation by promoting happiness and well-being among common people. He concedes
that, because of industrialisation, in certain spheres like housing, the people have begun to
live better as compared to earlier times. These advances are hailed as an advancement of
civilisation, promoting ‘bodily happiness’. Earlier, people wore skins and used spears as
weapons. But, now, they wore a wide range of clothing and used firearms. If people in other

56
parts of the world accepted the modern European practices, “they should have achieved
civilisation. Furthermore, technology had enormously enhanced man’s productive power and
his capacity to accumulate wealth. These are also signs of civilisation; but, there was also
another side to the picture now, self-destruction”.
Gandhi’s indignation at the consequences of industrialisation is apparent. With are
markable affinity to Marx’s criticism of Adam Smith, Gandhi rejects the claims of the
advancement as the present economic order is based on inequality. Gandhi, like Marx, also
points out to the relative fall under the present industrial system. In spite of improved
productive capacity, inequality persists and the workers live on subsistence wages. The
prescription for eradicating inequality is the abolition of industrial civilisation. He found
human salvation in are turn to nature. The hidden meaning of the Hind Swaraj is the need for
the freedom of the working class and the common people. This becomes evident from the
Italian example. Gandhi clearly states that Mazzini’s Italy is still in slavery, for it does not
cater to the needs and aspirations of the ordinary people. Political independence by itself is
irrelevant unless there is improvement and elevation in the lives of the ordinary people the
poor, the underprivileged and the toiling masses. Dalton states that:
The substance of the view of civilisation advanced in Hind Swaraj remained intact
throughout Gandhi’s life and deeply affected his conception of the nature of the good society.
At its worst, this view manifests itself in a negative suspicion of the West and a highly
provincial world outlook. At its best, it moulded a theory of the good society suited to the
Indian situation; a theory of social order of small communities, each seeking attainment of
individual freedom and social equality through mutual cooperation and respect. This was his
vision of Sarvodaya, the ‘Welfare of All’: the pattern of an Indian society that had indeed
achieved Swaraj.
Gandhi’s economic point of view, as Gyan Chand points out, like his political and social
view points, “was and is an integral part of Gandhi’s whole philosophy of life; and it can be
fully understood and duly appreciated only if this basic fact is borne in mind”. This
perspective broadens the whole concept of economic life and includes:
(1) The primary importance of man in production, distribution and exchange. In other
words, the primary purpose of the economy is the well-being, growth and development
of man.
(2) Specially, this principle applies to the use of machinery in the production process.
“Machinery for man and not man for machinery has to be the cardinal principle
mechanised production”.
(3) From the preceding point of view, industrialisation involving mass production,
centralisation of initiative, power, authority and policy formulation is undesirable and is
to be reduced to the barest minimum.
(4) A logical consequence of this is that decentralisation of production is to be carried tothe
maximum possible extent.

57
(5) “Small communities of producers means economic and social democracy, reduction of
inequalities within a very limited range and decentralized initiative”.
(6) These changes have far reaching implications and can only be brought about with
radical changes in society.
The radical changes need a social transformation that would be non-violent through mass
awakening, widely diffused social awareness and the use of the people’s power for
fundamental social transformation. This awakening and awareness would be based on a
vision of a society based on justice, equality and freedom. The goal of economic equality is
what unites Gandhi with the socialists but where they depart is with regard to the means of
reaching that goal. For the socialists, the basis of economic equality is the abolition of private
property and the social ownership of the means of production. Gandhi desires economic
equality but without wanting to abolish private property. He expects the rich to act as trustees
of the entire society. Since they would act neither for private gain nor for profit, there would
be differences in the amount of wealth, but there would be no differences in services and
lifestyles. Private ownership would continue for Gandhi, except in large-scale industries, it
would be imbued with public purpose. The development of social spirit and socialist
consciousness are the two cardinal principles of Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship. The deeper
meaning of his concept of trusteeship is akin to the Weberian notion of puritan ethics, which
does not decry the increase in production but prohibited conscious consumption. It has a
Calvinistic overtone and is beneficial to societies like ours where wide disparities are an
eyesore and exist without any effective social sanction and control.
Gandhi acknowledges the existence of social conflict and different conflicting class
interests but he believes that such conflicts would be resolved by non-violent mass action. He
all used to the existence of conflict in three sectors:
(1) conflict of labour and capital in industry;
(2) conflict of tenant and landlord in agriculture and
(3) conflict of village and city. He is confident that these conflicts could be resolved
through trusteeship and passive resistance with help of non-violence without class war.
Gandhi rejects the idea of revolutionary seizure of state power and stresses on the
transformation of relationship through peaceful transfer of power. While Marx rejects
capitalism but not industrialisation, Gandhi wants to restrict industrialisation.
5.6 Critique of Machinery
Gandhi is keen to limit and not eradicate machinery. His views on machinery and modern
industry are derived from the influence that John Ruskin (1819-1900)1 had on him. He
supports mechanisation, which would help the individual and not encroach upon
individuality. He clarifies about the misconceptions to his opposition to machines.
“How can I be when I know that even this body is a most delicate piece of machinery?
The spinning wheel is a machine; a little toothpick is a machine. What I object to is the craze

58
for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving
machinery. Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work and thrown on the
open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour, not for fraction of mankind
but for all. I want concentration of wealth, not in the hands of a few, but in the hands of all.
Today, machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions. The impetus behind it
all is not the philanthropy to save labour, but greed. It is against this constitution of things
that I am fighting with all my might….The supreme consideration is man. The machine
should not tend to atrophy the limits of man. The machine should not tend to atrophy the
limbs of man. For instance, I would make intelligent exceptions. Take the case of the singer’s
sewing machinery. It is one of the few useful things ever invented, and there is a romance
about the device itself”.
Gandhi supports those machines that are necessary to satisfy the basic human needs. He
also feels that industries should be socially owned by which he means welfare of society. He
wants limited industrialisation to satisfy limited wants such as food production, shelter, health
care and basic education. He also points out the impersonal and monotonous life that
industrialisation entails. But he is ready to accept it if it helps satisfy the basic human
requirements and if it is socially controlled. He is aware of the enormous differences among
countries and points out that the choice of technique depends on circumstances. Countries
like India with abundant labour and large-scale unemployment and underemployment should
restrict the use of machinery.
Gandhi’s antagonism to the use of machinery and industrialisation set him apart not only
from earlier Indian thinkers like Ranade and Gokhale but also among some of his
contemporaries like Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi rejects mechanised industrialisation on moral
and economic grounds. He considers machines as sins of modern civilisation. He dislikes the
migration of people from villages to cities in search of jobs, low wages and poor working
conditions of workers and unemployment. He laments about the under-utilisation of available
labour in view of the seasonal nature of agriculture which depends heavily on monsoons. He
points out that machines displace human or animal labour, instead of merely supplementing it
or increasing its efficiency. Unlike human labour there are no physical limits to the growth
and expansion of machines. Gandhi’s case against machines is “because they deprive men of
their employment and render them jobless. I oppose them not because they are machines but
because they create unemployment. If one machine does the work of a hundred men, then
where are we to employ those hundred men”?
Gandhi points out that the aggregate demand for labour is given and that as a result of
specialisation in the production process, workers have highly specific skills and cannot be
employed elsewhere in the economy even if there arises an opportunity for employment. In
general, he rejects machines because it displaces human labour and is disturbed by the fact
that with the proliferation of highly mechanised capital intensive industries in a country like
India with high population, it would lead to large scale unemployment with damaging social

59
effects. Large scale mechanisation also leads to concentration of production and distribution
in few hands and that would result in concentration of economic power.
Gandhi stressed on self-reliance through labour for all citizens of future India and he is
categorical that winning and maintenance of freedom is impossible without such work
discipline. It is for this reason that the spinning-wheel takes pride of place in this campaign,
as he believes that it provides the best means through which the poor could earn a
supplementary income or save money by producing their own cloth. Spinning-wheel, for
Gandhi, epitomises the spirit of self-reliance.
According to Gandhi, the cause of poverty is the covetousness of the rich and the
exploitation of the needy by the greedy. Incomes would have to be redistributed for raising
the output and fulfilment of the basic needs of the masses; this would depend a lot on limiting
the wants of the rich. If the masses are prepared to reject the evils of capital accumulation,
“they would strive to attain a more just distribution of the products of labour. Under the new
outlook multiplicity of material wants will not be the aim of the life, the aim will be rather
their restriction consistently with comfort. We shall cease to think of getting what we can, but
we shall decline to receive what all cannot get”. To get rid of poverty there is a need for a
revolutionary change in prevailing attitudes to consumption and to wealth in affluent societies
as well as in the poorer countries which are caught up in the ‘revolution of rising
expectations.’
Gandhi’s Swaraj is far removed from the Marxist ideal of a socialist stateless, classless
utopia. Like the Marxists and the socialists, he desires an egalitarian society but opposes their
deterministic view of history and human nature, and their espousal of violent revolutionary
changes. Like Marx, he accepts social conflict but does not think that violence is adequate to
resolve it. He admits that violence has helped in bringing about political liberty in certain
cases but it “has always brought the form and not the substance of freedom” for “the results
of violent revolution are always liable to be lost by violent counter revolution”. For Gandhi,
commitment to non-violence is total but it is the non-violence of the brave. A non-violent
revolutionary does not advocate a revolutionary seizure of state power but a transformation of
relationships culminating in a peaceful transfer of power.
Gandhi, like Marx, accepts that contemporary situation is full of conflict but differs from
Marx in focusing on the conflict between the city and the village. Marx’s philosophy is
essentially urban-oriented as he dismisses village culture as an ‘idiocy’. Gandhi contends that
India lives in its villages and that city culture is not only exploitative but also unequal.
Gandhi, unlike Marx, rejects the notion of class struggle, class polarisation and antagonisms.
He admits his attraction to the Marxist ideal but expressed doubts about the means to achieve
it. He also, unlike Marx, rejects large-scale industrialisation and common ownership of
property. Gandhi accepts, like Aristotle, that property is necessary and acknowledges the
talent in those individuals who have the ability to create wealth but insists that this wealth be
used for common good. Gandhi proposes the Trusteeship system to ensure harmony between
the property owners and the non-propertied. Like Marx, he is conscious of the notion of

60
relative fall. Under the present industrial system, despite enormous and improved productive
capacity, inequality not only persists but has also increased. In this sense, he accepts Marx’s
criticism of Adam Smith for ignoring social nature of our needs. However, while Marx only
rejects industrial capitalism, Gandhi rejects Western civilisation along with its attendant
features like mechanisation and industrialisation as it is based on extreme inequality and it
dehumanises the human being. Like the Marxists and the socialists, Gandhi desires an
egalitarian, just and non-exploitative society.
If we differentiate between the transient and the permanent, the local and the perennial,
the essential Gandhi emerges in a different perspective bringing out the similarities between
Gandhi and Marx. There is an agreement on basic issues though their methods of reaching the
ideal differ. Both accept the imperfection of the modern society since it is based on conflict
and inequality. Both dislike mechanical interpretation and emphasise the dynamic role of the
human being in bringing about the necessary transformation in society. Both are confident of
human capacity to transcend the present stage of irrational existence and reach a higher stage
based on harmony and fulfilment of individual needs. The only Western parallel to Gandhi is
Rousseau, for like Rousseau, he too idealises a glorious past but realises that since there is no
going back, salvation lies in small, independent, self-governing and self-sufficient
communities. Gandhi’s ideal is an “anarchist society where each individual is a law to
himself, living peacefully and with goodwill towards all, controlling all his passions and
living by his own labour”. The Indian Marxists underrated Gandhi’s social criticisms and his
resolve to bring about a better and equitable social order.
5.7 Conclusion
Gandhi is a severe critic of contemporary society and is conscious of its divisions, structural
fallacies and many inadequacies. He emphasises the human factor in any kind of
revolutionary transformation as he desires the elimination of misery and conflict. He provides
a framework for resolving conflicts and for building a social, political and economic order
based on consensus. Both his commitment to non-violence and his own initiatives in
resolving conflicts between the different segments were with the aim of establishing a non-
exploitative, equal and just order. He sought to transform by relying on moral persuasion and
pressure on the propertied and the advantaged. The idea of moral coercion lay at the heart of
non-violent satyagraha. Rabindranath Tagore, like Gandhi, is conscious of the acute
differences and conflicts in the Indian society but believes that it is society and not politics
that has to be the primary focus.
The distinctiveness of Gandhi’s outlook is that he points to the gap that exists between
the village and the city and that the gulf would increase in the coming future. His desire is to
narrow the gap and create a framework for the village to grow and prosper without destroying
the city. He desires their reform so that a new partnership could evolve between the village
and the city. He also points out to the differences among countries. Countries like India with
abundant labour and, unemployment and underemployment ought to restrict the use of
machinery. On both these scores, the Gandhi’s blueprint is of immense importance to us. The

61
prosperity of the village is the key to create a new balanced India, for checking the
uncontrollable migration to cities that are bursting in its seams and not in a position to offer
the means for decent and dignified life and also ensuring a balance between agriculture and
industry.
5.8 Bibliography
 Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied
Publishers,1969.
 Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta, Calcutta
BookHouse, 1969.
 Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967.
 Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
 Dasgupta, A.K., Gandhi’s Economic Thought, London and New York, Routledge,
1996.
 Hardiman, D., Gandhi: In His Time and Ours, Delhi, Permanent Press, 2003.
 Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford University
Press,1973.
 Mukherjee, S., Gandhian Thought: Marxist Interpretation, Delhi, Deep and Deep
Publications,1991.
 Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi,
Sage,1986.
 Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University
Press,1989.
 Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
5.9 Practice Questions
1. Define Swaraj? Discuss the different dimensions of Swaraj.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. What is the concept of Gram Swaraj?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
3. Critically Examine Gandhi's concept of Swaraj?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

62
 Unit-6
B. R. Ambedkar
Dr. Nishant Kumar

6. Structure
6.1 Life Sketch
6.2 Important Events in Ambedkar’s Career as Politician and Activist
6.3 Important Works
6.4 Caste
6.5 Untouchability
6.6 Annihilation of Caste: Summary of the Text
6.7 Ambedkar’s idea of Social Justice
6.8 Ambedkar on Nation and Nationalism
6.9 Democracy
6.10 Constitution and constitutional morality
6.11 Poona Pact (1932)
6.12 Dr. Ambedkar’s Economic views
6.13 Ambedkar on the position of Women in Indian society
6.14 Conclusion
6.15 Practice Questions
6.16 References

6.1 Life Sketch

Born on 14 April 1891, in the Mahar community (an ‘Untouchable’ caste) at Mhow, Madhya
Pardesh, Ambedkar went on to become one of the leading figures of Indian history, most
famously for his role as the chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution.
He graduated from Elphinston college of Bombay University majoring in English and
Persian. He received a generous scholarship from Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III of Baroda
to pursue a postgraduate degree from Columbia University at United States of America. Later
he joined the London School of Economics in 1916, where he worked on his doctoral thesis
titled “The Problem of the Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution” and could only get his degree
in Economics in 1927. In 1917, his scholarship expired and he had to return to serve in the
administration of the then Baroda State. His experiences of working there introduced him to
humiliations which he could directly relate with his being born in the untouchable

63
community. Eventually he left for Bombay, where after initial hardships, he was got job as
Professor of Political Economy Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics.
In January 1920, Ambedkar started his fortnight magazine Mooknayak, which along with
the other journals he started, he used to expose the humiliation and discrimination faced by
Dalit community. He also developed strategies to make them conscious of their state of being
and organize them to fight for their dignity and self-respect. In 1920 with the support of
Shahu Maharaj of Kohlapur he organized the first All India Conference of the Depressed
Classes in Nagpur. Since 1923, when he returned from London, he actively participated in
various organizational activities , including active politics, to fight for social justice and
transform the exploitative social structures in favour of an inclusive system favoring the
principles of equality, liberty and fraternity.
6.2 Important Events in Ambedkar’s Career as Politician and Activist
 He made representation before Southborough committee in January 1919 demanding
separate electorate for depressed classes as conceded to Muslims.
 Started fortnightly called Mooknayak on 31 January, 1920.
 Collaborated with Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur in forming Depressed Classes Forum
in 1920.
 In 1924 Ambedkar formed the Bahiskrit Hitkarni Sabha.
 In 1927 he led the Mahad Satyagraha for the right of the Untouchables to have access
to wells and tanks.
 On 25 December 1927, he publicly burns Manusmriti as symbolic protest.
 In April 1927 he began journal called Bahiskrit Bharat.
 Formed Samaj Samata Sangh in September 1927 and Samata Sainik Dal in December
1927 for aggressively pursuing the agenda of social equality.
 Played a prominent part in Kalaram Temple movement in 1930, Nasik for entry of
depressed classes in it.
 ON 29 August Ambedkar was appointed the Chairman of Drafting Committee for the
Constitution.
 Became the President of All India Depressed Classes Congress in Nagpur in 1930.
 Started a fortnightly called Janata, in 1934, later published as Prabuddh Bharat from
1956.
 Poona Pact 1932.
 Anti-Untouchability League formed by Congress, later named as Harijan Sevak
Sangh, he accepted membership of executive council. He differed and opposed

64
 Gandhi’s understanding and strategy for removing untouchability and resigned from it
in 1933.
 On 13 October 1935 in the Depressed classes meeting at Nashik, for the first time he
suggested that people belonging to depressed classes should leave Hinduism as he
was convinced that Hinduism could not be reformed.
 In 1936 wrote Annihiliation of Caste for Jat Pat Todak Mandal.
 On 15 August 1936 he founded the Independent Labour Party (ILP).
 In 1942 he found Scheduled Caste Federation (SCF). He began to project it as third
party other than Hindus and Muslims in the constitutional developments sought in
India.
 Became to Law Minister in Nehru’s Cabinet.
 Resigned from Nehru Cabinet in 1951 due to differences over Hindu Code Bill.
 1956, 14 October, he converted to Buddhism.

6.3 Important Works

 The Buddha and His Dhamma (1956)
 Who were the Shudras (1946)
 What the Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables (1945)
 Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables (1942)
 Pakistan or the Partition of India (1940)
 Annihilation of Caste (1936)
 The Problem of the Rupee, its Origin and its solution (1923)
 The Problem of Provincial Finance in British India (1925)

6.4 Caste
Ambedkar’s views on the origins of caste and the genesis of caste system witnessed some
important transformations over the years. Earlier he had claimed that main feature of caste
was endogamy. Once certain caste categories started practicing endogamy drawing strict
boundaries, it was gradually adopted by other groups. Although in his later writings as well,
Ambedkar emphasized on endogamy as the main feature of caste system, he gradually added
to it other aspects as well. These included the subjects of division of labor and labourers,
refusals to inter-dine, and strict restriction on social mobility. Graded inequality, according to
him, became the mainstay of caste system and it had become an essential characteristic of
Hindu society. It is therefore that he was convinced that the only solution to the problem of

65
caste was its annihilation. He suggested inter-caste marriage and inter-dinning for the purpose
although the latter by itself was too weak to forge any enduring bonds.
Ambedkar essay “Castes in India, Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development” in 1917
can be seen as his first serious attempt to analyze the caste system in India. He pointed that
since its inception, the Hindu society was divided into classes, that they also referred as
varnas which included Brahmins (the priestly class), the Kshatriyas (the warrior class), the
Vaishayas (the trading class) and the Shudras (the artisan class and others involved in what
society claims as menial jobs). This earlier system was more open with provisions of social
mobility in case one learnt the traits required qualities of that particular class. However,
gradually this open characteristic was lost and the system became hierarchical and closed.
This was the beginning of what is understood as the caste categories in the modern sense. The
starting point is traced to the decision by priestly class to detach themselves as a unit from
rest of society and adopting a closed policy refusing to intermarry, inter-dine as well as free
interaction or acquiring their characteristics to be included in the caste group. This was
followed by an emphasis on birth being the sole criterion to define one’s identity to belong to
a particular caste. These therefore emerged as the main features of caste system.
Ambedkar extensively criticized the caste system in India and argued that it was the
fundamental reason for lack of unity and fraternity among Hindus. Caste consciousness,
according to him, led to the degeneration of Hindu society and had long term repercussions
on Indian society in general. The lack of mobility within castes and rigidity of the system
based on the constructed logic of purity and pollution had negative consequences on the
values of equality liberty and fraternity, which according to Ambedkar were the building
blocks for any idea of democracy or nation. To make things worse, the system received
sanctity from the religious scriptures which also stress on penalties if it was not followed. As
a result, Ambedkar was convinced that the change in the system required a structural change
in the Hindu religion.
6.5 Untouchability
Ambedkar rebutted the understanding about the possible relation between race and caste
system or Untouchability, and rejected the position that caste had developed in relation to
race. He also distinguished the institution of untouchability from caste although he agreed
that untouchability was reinforced by caste system and that the higher castes were primarily
responsible for both. Ambedkar criticized the Hindu scriptures and sacred texts that justified
the prevalence of caste system and also legitimized it. In his monograph titled “The
Untouchables: Who were they and why they became Untouchables?” published in 1948, he
tried to analyze the genesis of untouchability as a social practice. He opined that in ancient
times during the tribal wars, those who were defeated were broken from their groups and
wandered around. He calls them ‘Broken Men’. When the idea of civilization and settled
society developed, these the settled families faced constant threat from the nomadic tribes,
who survived on stolen cattle and property. The settled communities did not have the
capacity to counter the raiding nomadic tribes as they were engaged in agriculture for

66
survival. The broken men also needed resources for survival and hence a form of contract
was reached where the broken men agreed to defend and serve the settled communities
against the nomads. When the question about their settlement was raised, the settled
communities refused to allow them to settle among them and provided them land in the
outskirts. That is how they started living outside the settled villages and were gradually
excluded from all others culturally. It was these broken men who later became untouchables.
Such broken men gradually became the followers of Buddhism as it emphasized on equality
and dignity of each individual. When the Brahmins regained power and control over society,
under pressure many of these returned to the Hindu fold, whereas many among them
continued embracing Buddhism thereby coming in direct contradiction to the Brahmins.
Though this historical explanation lacks any evidence to back it up, it is certain that
Untouchability developed as a discriminating practice due to the practices of purity/pollution
among caste Hindus. Untouchability, according to Ambedkar, was not only against the
principles of equality and fraternity but also against basic Human Rights as it denied self
respect and dignity to the untouchables.
He felt that it was difficult for outsider to understand the phenomena of untouchability
and explored modes of presenting the same. Once explained, he thought human sympathy
would be forthcoming towards alleviating the plight of the untouchables, but at the sometime
anticipated hurdles to be crossed, hurdles made of age-old prejudice, interest, religious
retribution, the burden of the social pyramid above and the feeble resource that the
‘Untouchables’ could muster. He opined that the Untouchables had to fight their own battles.
He discussed attempt to deny the existence of untouchability and to reduce the proportion of
population in order to deny them adequate political presence. He suggested that the
untouchables should educate, organize and agitate for the cause of self-dignity and self-
respect. In his analysis of the problem and suggesting for reforms, he differed fundamentally
from Gandhi. He threw scorn at the Gandhian attempt to remove Untouchability and termed
it as mere façade aimed at buying over the ‘Untouchables’ with kindness by calling them
‘harijans’. He presented voluminous empirical data to defend such a thesis, and suggested his
own strategies to confront untouchability, warning Untouchables not to fall into trap of
Gandhism.
6.6 Annihilation of Caste: Summary of the Text
Text written as speech for lecture at meeting of Jat Pat Todak Mandal. Organizers had
problems with some passages and asked him to reconsider, he refused and cancelled his
lecture and got it publish later. In this text Ambedkar highlights the anomalies associated
with caste system and logic of its defenders as well as decimated those defences. He also
talks about problems of caste and how to resolve it. For example, two main arguments
forwarded by the advocates and defenders of caste system is a) it is a form of division of
labour and improves efficiency in society; b) caste system was meant to ensure purity of race
and blood. Ambedkar countered these claims by arguing that caste system was not only a
division of labour but also division of labourers. No civilized society allows hierarchy and

67
denial of mobility based on birth. In caste, social status of parents and birth was important
factor or determinant and it went against the logic of merit. Caste does not allow job mobility
and there is no freedom of choosing occupation. As a result, natural inclinations and talents
are prevented from developing. To the second claim, Ambedkar responded by arguing that
there is no pure race in world as anthropologists have shown. There have been intermixtures
all around. Caste system developed much after such comingling had taken place. Secondly,
race and caste are different. Race based on biological differences but caste not based on that.
No racial affinity between Brahmin of different regions of India or between backward
communities of different areas. It is social division of people of the same race.
Caste system, according to Ambedkar was a product of design aimed for personal
benefits of certain sections who were dominant and got imposed everywhere. In India, he
argues, there was no consciousness of kind, but only consciousness of caste. It is such a
divisive system that it prevents common activity and prevents unity among Hindus that
defines community. Further the subdivisions within caste make it even more complicated and
a hurdle for oneness and unity. Caste not only discriminates but also creates hierarchy and
preservation seen important. There is constant attempt to pull down those who want to
liberate and improve life style. It also makes Hindus intolerant as preventive and punitive
aspects attached against those who want to break barriers of caste. The fear of social boycott
kills public spirit and consciousness. He also criticizes those who defend Varna system by
posing it as different from caste. He argues that chaturvarnya as a system was impracticable,
harmful and miserable. He argues that varna system was the predecessor of caste and both
equally undermined human potential to develop its potential and capacities by fixing into
categories that are predetermined.
For Ambedkar his ideal would be based on the principles of Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity. Ideal society, in his views, should be mobile, and based on ‘social endosmosis’- an
inclusive view about common sharing. He argues that the problem is not the presence of
division of society into different groups as it was widely practiced in all societies, which
exhibit atleast some form of division. The question should rather be: a) How varied are
interests within the group? How strong are forces and sanctions that divide the groups than
forces that unite? If the groups have similar interests and the divisions are not rigid and if the
factors acting as glue within those societies is more than divisive forces, there should not be a
problem. But in caste system it is not so. It has a rigid structure with sanctions from religious
scriptures and exhibits serious preventive and punitive system of punishments attached with
any form of mobility.
Caste is a notion, a state of mind. It requires notional change. The best solution for
Ambedkar is the practices of intermarriage and interdining as these practices are against the
idea of purity and pollution that is significant for continuing caste in Hindu society. But
Ambedkar is also mindful that Hindus observes caste as they are deeply religious and the
legitimacy or sanction for caste system is received from shastras. The remedy can therefore

68
only be to dismantle the belief in the sanctity of shastras as it is shastras that prevent inter-
dining and intermarriage.
In fact, Ambedkar suggests that we need a complete overhaul in the structure of religion.
He differentiates between religion based on principles and that based on rules. Rules are
practical but rigid they enslave you and restrict you. Principles are intellectual and only show
the path of right and wrong. They are not imposed. Religious act must be responsible. It must
be based on principles and not rules. Moral and ethical discussions should be part of it but no
sanctions and rules to slave them. Hindu religion is full of rules and hence regressive. He is
not against religion. He also suggests some religious reforms that could help Hindu religion
to become inclusive.
1) One standard book acceptable to all Hindus and followed by all. All other books and
its preaching should be prevented by law.
2) Priesthood be removed, at least should not be hereditary. Anyone who has good
knowledge can become priest. An examination should be held by state to qualify as
priest and it should be open for all.
3) No ceremony should be allowed to be performed by priest who does not qualify the
exam. It should be held illegal. Priests should not have any immunities in law. Their
numbers should be restricted by state as required.
4) A new doctrinal basis to religion is required. He stressed on a democratic religion
based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
6.7 Ambedkar’s idea of Social Justice
Social justice refers to those aspects of policies of the state, either socio-economic or
political, which aims at bringing the marginalized and the disadvantaged sections to the
mainstream. In the Indian context, Ambedkar was the chief architect of the principles of
social justice as present in our constitution. He was confident that only by granting political
justice the life world of the depressed classes could not be altered, and special provisions had
to be made for their socio-economic and cultural inclusion in the Indian society where they
could lead a life of self-respect and dignity. Any substantial transformation in their lives
required a fundamental alteration in the way social relations were devised and for this there
was a need to devise principles that had legal sanction.
He was certain that such principles and policies had to be both protective as well as
promotive in nature. On the one hand he advocated the need for political representation for
these sections, which meant having special provisions to ensure that the formal democratic
set-up was inclusive and truly representative and these disadvantaged groups had fair
opportunity to participate in the policy-making process that were to impact their lives. For
this, he advocated the policy of reservations during the Constituent Assembly debates.
But political representation was not in itself enough. Therefore, he favored reservations
also in public employment. Such provisions could help in restructuring the social structure in

69
two important ways. Firstly, it would grant them social recognition and respect in society.
Secondly, an assured employment would also help them improve their economic condition
and bring them out of their miserable economic condition in which they were forced to live
for long. Along with these, employability could inculcate among the members of the
depressed classes a sense of dignity and self-respect. All these helped in a renewed
understanding about the discourse of rights in the Indian context, where it was no more seen
in terms of privilege rather understood in an inclusive sense as a means of social
transformation. Preferential treatment in its new avatar was not about benevolence from the
dominant section of the community but a legal commitment that the nation collectively made
to the disadvantaged sections through its constitution. It was a guarantee that if these rights
were compromised, they could approach the courts in this regard. Other than this, he also
supported other measures like making the practice of untouchability illegal. So, empowering
the disadvantaged groups included for him both protective and promotional policies that
should be undertaken by the state to balance the social structure and make space for social
endosmosis and inclusion.
6.8 Ambedkar on Nation and Nationalism
Using the essay of French nationalist Earnest Renan, “What is a Nation?” Ambedkar argued
that nation is a specific form of ‘consciousness of kind’, ‘social endosmosis’, ‘social
amalgamation’- an ideal society suffused with the principles of liberty, equality, and
fraternity. Nationalism is defined as aspiration to have a separate and self-determined
political fraternity. On the question of Pakistan and later during reorganization of states,
Ambedkar realized and pointed out time and again the advantages of cultural/linguistic
homogeneity for the smooth functioning of democracy. In 1940, after the demand for
Pakistan was pushed by Muslim league, he wrote “Pakistan or the Partition of India”. He felt
that the appeal for Pakistan was due to failure of congress for social reforms and democratize
society. He argued that once an identity became a political force then consequences of its
formation have to be faced. He questioned the leadership of nationalist movement in India
based on various issues like their elite nature and their non commitment on the issues related
to minorities and marginalized classes. Ambedkar argued that political unity is not sufficient
for a nation, it is social unity that is crucial. Also Democracy and its values like liberty,
equality and fraternity are equally central for nation- both procedural and substantive.
For Ambedkar nationalism was a strong emotional feeling and it was not possible to
remove it. However, he equally opined that in absence of integration, inclusiveness and
respect for human rights true nationalism could not be evolved. He did not believe in
aggressive form of nationalism as he considered it irrational and it could give rise to
intolerance among people. At the same time, he was convinced that any nationalism based on
religion could not promote the ideals of democracy. Therefore, for him Indian nationalism
ought to be based on social endosmosis where citizens of all sections get due recognition and
respect.

70
 Ambedkar believed that colonialism had its own dangers and critiqued it based on its
different aspects, primarily economic of the way it endangered local economy. At the same
time, he thought that replacing British rule by the rule of those people who did not have faith
in the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity or those who were against principles of socio-
economic equality was equally dangerous. Such people could misuse power in the name of
nationalism. He therefore insisted on accountable and responsible governance based on the
values of democracy.
He insisted that fight against caste was more difficult but more important than swaraj. In
swaraj people readily come together with you, when against caste system they will oppose
you. Social reform of Hinduism was more important than swaraj. Merely Political freedom,
he argued, was worthless, as there is possibility, in absence of unity that you become slave
again. So social unity based on reforms shall develop that unity and could be the ideal basis
for nationalism in India.
6.9 Democracy
Ambedkar’s vision about democracy was deeply influenced by the ideas of Sidney and
Beatrice Webb, the leading members of Fabian Socialism in Britain as well as Harold Laski.
He was equally influenced by Hobson and Hobhouse in conceiving about the transformatory
potential of the democratic state. He was certain that democracy had potential to seriously
alter the social and economic life of the common masses without resorting to violence. His
primary concern was the role that democracy could achieve in reducing socio-economic
inequalities. That was the reason why he firmly held that political democracy must be
accompanied with social and economic democracy. Within the democratic set-up Ambedkar
was a great admirer of the Parliamentary form of government. He pointed at the three features
of this system that scored much above any other. Firstly, it was based on open competition
and there was no role of hereditary rule. Secondly, it allowed for decentralization of power
and no single person or body could claim its authority. Thirdly, the representatives had to win
the confidence of the people and this made them more accountable.
He also pointed out the essential conditions for the successful working of democracy.
1) A democratic society must do everything to reduce inequality in society. If there are
glaring inequalities, it may become the cause for revolution and may threaten the
Parliamentary system.
2) Statutory provisions must be developed in order to protect the oppressed classes from
suffering and to safeguard their interests.
3) In order to ensure a system of scrutiny along with check and balance, an effective
opposition was necessary. It could ensure that the party in power did not misuse its
position and became responsible to the Parliament.
4) He supported the idea of permanent civil services for the implementation of the
policies formulated by the government. He also favored a recruitment based on merit
in the civil services unlike, for example, the ‘Spoils System’ of USA.

71
 5) He warned against the possibility of tyranny of the majority as democracies by its
very nature favored the majority. Therefore, he believed that effective mechanism to
ensure safety, redressal of grievances and protection of interests of minorities must
be put in place.
6) Citizens must be educated and trained in the values promoted by the constitution.
7) Ambedkar like Harold Laski believed that democracy was not only a form of
government but a way of life and the role of citizens became very crucial for its
smooth running. Therefore, he suggested that democratic systems should try to
develop a moral order which its citizens conform to. Conscientiousness was an
important virtue for sustenance of democracy, according to Ambedkar.
6.10 Constitution and Constitutional Morality
Ambedkar believed that however good a constitution may be, it depended on those who
worked upon it. Constitution could only provide broad contours of different organs and
functions. It totally depended on the people who operated there and political parties whether
they would uphold constitutional methods or not cannot be predicted. He opined that earlier
also India lost independence due to internal forces that divided our power and capacity. Caste
d class divisions were a truth in Hindu society, but the political parties representing their
interests should keep in mind that interest of the country was more important than the
sectarian interests of the groups.
Ambedkar held that if the constitution was to be protected and democracy was to be
preserved, constitutional morality was important. First, there was a need to hold fast to
constitutional methods in our fight for social and economic objectives. It must mean citizens
would abandon methods of revolution, but also method of civil disobedience, non-
cooperation and satyagraha. When there was constitution that recognized the rights citizens
did not need such political posturing that hampered the spirit of constitution. When there was
no constitution, Ambedkar argued, such “unconstitutional methods” could be employed but
not after the constitution was adopted. He called such methods as nothing but “grammar of
anarchy”. Secondly, Ambedkar argued that we should observe caution that not to lay liberty
even on the feet of a great man. Respect their greatness but not make them hero because in
India we have tendency for ‘bhakti’ or hero worship as it might lead to eventual dictatorship.
It is good for religion not for democracy. Third was not to be content with mere political
democracy but rather strive to make Indian democracy a social democracy as well. Social
democracy meant a way of life that recognized equality, liberty and fraternity as fundamental
values for the collective being of the citizens. They formed a union of trinity that must be
uphold at all costs. He held that there was complete absence of equality on social plane in
India because of the discriminatory caste system and on economic plane there was a huge gap
between the rich and the poor. Social and economic inequality produced a contradiction that
was not good for political democracy in the long run. At the same time there was also a
deficit of the value of fraternity in Indian society. Fraternity meant a sense of common
brotherhood that gave solidarity and unity to social life. Therefore, he claimed that till the

72
time castes existed, India could not develop as a nation in the truest sense. So, there was a
need to overcome and do away with these as castes are anti-national as it divided people.
6.11 Poona Pact (1932)
In the backdrop of Communal Award of 1932 that granted separate electorate to the
Untouchables. Gandhi resorted to a fast unto death against the Award as he had threatened at
the Round Table Conference. The Award left space for changes if the communities concerned
suggested an alternative scheme, a leeway Ambedkar used to negotiate on behalf of the
Depressed Classes, resulting in the Poona Pact which was signed between him and Pandit
Madan Mohan Malviya on 24 September 1932 at Yerwada Jail in Poona. The core of this
pact was the promise of a joint electorate with reservations for Depressed Classes, but it did
not satisfy anyone eventually. The terms of pact included the reservation of 148 seats for
members of Depressed Classes, almost twice the seats promised to them under separate
electorate. Further, the candidates for these seats would be selected by the electoral college
including all eligible electorates from among Depressed classes and four of the candidates
getting highest votes would be the official candidates for the elections by general electorates.
In the Central Legislatures as well, 18% of seats allotted for British India would be reserved
for Depressed Classes. It also had provision for earmarking an adequate amount of funds to
improve the educational facilities for Depressed Classes. The orthodox hindus rallied against
Gandhi for conceding too great a share of seats to the depressed classes, while Ambedkar
later held that joint electorate was nothing but a ploy, whereby only those members of
Depressed Classes, who were close to caste Hindus and were acceptable to them, could get
elected and not those who authentically wished to represent the untouchables and speak for
them.
6.12 Dr. Ambedkar’s Economic views
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was an economist by education and training. His higher degrees in both
Columbia University and London School of economics and Political Science were in the field
of Economics. Based on his research outputs, he also published three important works in the
areas of public finance which included Administration and Finance of the East India
Company (1915), The Evolution of the Public Finance in British India: A Study in the
Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance (1925) and The Problem of Rupee: Its
Origin and Solution (1923).
Based on the data from 1792-93 to 1857-58, Ambedkar in Administration and Finance of
the East India Company presented a gross critique of the British East India Company’s
economic policies in India by highlighting how it had gradually ruined Indian economy. He
claimed that by the time the Company rule ended in India after the Mutiny of 1857, the
burden of the entire debt accumulated by it during its conquest of India was put on the Indian
people who were already burdened by poverty produced by the Company’s policies in India.
Further, he also highlighted large scale transfer of wealth in the form of tributes, gifts and
transfers from India to England by the Company officials. He also exposed the uneven trade

73
policies followed by the British that was set to benefit the colonial power and destroy
indigenous economy. He points at the fact that in terms of tariff policies imports from Britain
were taxed at much lower rate making its access of Indian market smooth and easy, whereas
exports from India to Britain had to face heavy export duties. This uneven structure led to
destruction of local industrial capacity and manufacturing base and promoting the interests of
British industries.
In his next work, The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, Ambedkar
studied the relationship between the Centre and the Provinces between 1823 to 1921. His
analysis highlighted the problems with the British economic policies in India. The uneven
relationship was reflected in the fact that revenue collecting powers and legislative powers
were concentrated in the hands of the Centre but the expenditure was primarily the
responsibility of the Provinces. This arrangement based on diarchy produced chaos at the
level of public finance. Ambedkar also highlighted the unjust system of taxation where the
entire burden fell on the poor and the collection, rather than being invested for public welfare
was being used for lavish lifestyle and privileges of the elites including zamindars and
government officials. Due to the uneven forms of taxation policy the overall tax collection
had also gradually shrunk and led to large scale shortfall in revenue collections.
In 1923, Ambedkar published The Problem of Rupee: Its Origin and Its Solution. It
discussed the evolution of currency system in India since the nineteenth century. It further
analyzed the efficiency of the prevailing system and exchange rate in India and suggested
possible reforms. He found that an overvalued rupee was in line with British commercial
interests as it could ensure that the exports from Britain to India were cheaper, whereas on the
contrary, the Indian industrialists were lobbying for devaluation as it would support exports
from India. Ambedkar however favored a stable currency system and held that it could only
be achieved by stabilizing its purchasing power. The British had adopted Gold-Exchange
Standard instead of Gold Standard following the suggestions of famous economist John
Maynard Keynes, whereas Ambedkar argued that Gold Standard would be most suited for
stabilizing the value of rupee and creation of a stable monetary system in India, as Gold-
Exchange Standard lacked stability and predictability.
Other than his intellectual contributions, Ambedkar also played significant role in giving
direction to India’s economic growth. He introduced key reforms in the labour laws, laid
foundations of river valley projects and electricity production houses. He understood the deep
linkages between agriculture, infrastructure development, industrialization, education, and
poverty alleviation. He believed that no sector could develop in isolation and there needed to
be a proper coordination among different sectors to achieve a balanced economic growth. He
favored land reforms but with a cautious approach taking into consideration the local
dynamics of social, political and other dynamics. He also advocated the idea of expanding the
total cultivable land by transforming the wastelands by the help of science and technology.
The converted land could be distributed among the landless. However, he also understood the
limitations of agriculture in generating wealth and therefore favored the idea of promoting

74
cottage and small-scale industries. His emphasis on hydro-electric river projects like
Damodar, Son, Mahanadi was based on the foresightedness that electricity generation was an
important infrastructural requirement for the establishment of large-scale industries. He also
opined that proper forest cover was important for ecological balance, but also because it
could ensure ample rainfall which was important for agriculture. Thus, as visible, he
promoted the idea of sustainable development as well as integrative developmental strategy.
6.13 Ambedkar on the Position of Women in Indian Society
Dr. Ambedkar believed that endogamy was the primary and key characteristic of the caste
system. He asserted that in order to maintain the sex ratio and perpetuate endogamy and
thereby the caste system, four different practices were deployed: a) the practice of sati; b)
enforced widowhood; c) enforced celibacy; and d) the marriage of child brides with older
men and widowers. These practices are exploitative for women and thus Ambedkar
underlines the fact that castes are maintained through the sexual exploitation of women.
Ambedkar also argues that in ancient India, women enjoyed a high social status. They were
in forefront in the political process as also in the social and intellectual spheres. But with the
production of dharamsastras like Manu’s, the downfall in the status of women began. He puts
forth evidence for the same by quoting from the Manusmriti. “The essential character of
women’s life is to tempt and corrupt men” (Rule 2-213). Examples like these were forwarded
by him as evidence of his claims. Manu, Ambedkar held, stood in opposition to women’s
right to property and divorce, and justified atrocities on women. This was in sync with the
needs of the Brahmanical religion. Ambedkar claims that Manu codified the position of the
Brahmans on the status of women which had developed after the rise of Brahmanical
Religion. Dr. Ambedkar in a powerful symbolic gesture publicly burnt the Manusmriti for its
justification of enslavement of women and shudras.
As law minister Ambedkar sought to change the laws of Manu which were misogynistic
and reduced women to commodity. Therefore, he argued for women’s right to justice,
equality and security. The Hindu code bill brought forth a text that had possibilities for the
liberation of women. Women were at the core of the Hindu Code Bill and through the laws
on property, marriage and divorce, he sought to enhance the cause of women. For instance,
men could marry many times but similar right was not granted to women. Hindu code bill
changed it to uniform principle of monogamy for both genders. Also as in Hindu law
marriage was sacrament, a break in this or divorce was not possible. Ambedkar saw this as
unjust and sought to amend it. He also wanted that women be granted right to inheritance
equal to sons which was denied to them under Act of Inheritance 1937. He advocated the
Hindu Code Bill as an effective tool to transform the hierarchies embedded in the Hindu
families and the caste system to put them in line with the values promoted by the Indian
constitution. When there was pressure on the government from different sections of
conservative Hindus not to amend these laws, he wrote to Nehru that the bill had for him
extraordinary importance and appealed to him to leave no stone unturned to convince the
opponents. When government under tremendous pressure from opponents decided to tone

75
down the bill and remove some significant clauses, he dared to resign on the women’s
question as the Law Minister of Nehru Cabinet. He conceived the Bill as a historic
opportunity to address the women’s question.
6.14 Conclusion
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is popularly heralded as the architect of the Indian constitution. As the
Chairperson of the Drafting Committee his interventions and guidance played a significant
role in making Indian constitution inclusive. He was a statist with firm commitment to
constitutional democracy. He saw in it the transformatory potential to redefine and
reconstruct Indian society based on the principles of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.
Regardless of his differences with the Congress leaders, he worked tirelessly to ensure that
the cause of social justice was not compromised and that the depressed classes could lead a
life of self-respect and dignity. His most significant contribution remains in his dedication
and hard work to improve the life world of the marginalized sections in the Indian society and
his attempts to create an egalitarian social order.
6.15 Practice Questions
1 What according to Ambedkar was the panacea for the caste-ridden Indian society?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. What is Constitutional morality? Analyze Ambedkar’s suggestions about maintaining
constitutional morality in a democratic society.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
3. Discuss the economic ideas of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
4. Why does Ambedkar believe that political democracy in absence of social democracy
was insufficient? What are his suggestions in this regard?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

76
5. Critically examine Ambedkar’s understanding of Patriarchy in the Indian context.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
6.16 References

 Rodrigues, V. (2002). The Essential Writings of B. R. Ambedkar. New Delhi:

Routledge.
 Keer, D. (1962). Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
 Jadhav, N. (1993). Dr. Ambedkar’s Economic Thought and Philosophy. Bombay:
Popular Publishing House.
 Ambedkar, B. R. (1983). Writings and Speeches. Bombay: Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra.
 Omvedt, G. (1994). Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the
Dalit Movement in Colonial India. New Delhi: Sage.

77
 Unit-7

Tagore critique of Nationalism

Nitesh Rai

7. Structure
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Learning Objectives
7.3 Background
7.4 India’s race problem
7.5 Comparing India and the world
7.6 Nationalism and synthetic universalism
7.7 Tagore on commercialism
7.8 Problematic of Indian Nationalism
7.9 Summary
7.10 Practice Questions
7.11 References

7.1 Introduction
Nationalism has always been a contested domain and the idea has been enriched over the
period of time with scholarly interventions in a sustained manner. From the Western
civilization to the post-colonial societies, debates on Nationalism have various connotations
and interestingly they all are different from each other. In India, we can trace multiple voices
of nationalism ranging from Gandhi, Tilak, Ambedkar, and many more. For some the whole
trajectory of nationalism has been a unifying process where people across different identities
come together for a common objective that is national interest. For thinkers like Tilak or
Savarkar, nationalism played a crucial role in unifying people against British rule and
mobilizing people across different regions and identities to even sacrifice their lives in the
service of the nation.
As we discussed above, we do not have one dominant voice when we talk of
nationalism. Rabindranath Tagore emerged as one of the most popular critics of the idea of
nationalism that had gained currency during the anti-colonial struggle. For Tagore, the very
term ‘nationalism’ is derived from the word ‘nation-state’ that has given birth to concepts like
capitalism and mechanization. Nationalism, according to Tagore, is anti-Indian and goes
against the principles of Indian civilization. In his famous writing ‘Ghare Baire’, he expresses
his perspective of nationalism and demonstrates how nationalism is antithetical to the
community feeling that is inherent in the roots of Indian civilization. For Tagore, capitalism
and the mechanization of humans are affronts to the Indian tradition of pluralism, tolerance,
78
and autonomy. Similarly, For Ambedkar any idea in the name of nationalism that tries to
subvert the interests of the marginalized in the name of national interest was not acceptable at
all.
Does that mean that Tagore was not a nationalist? To accept this premise would be
tantamount to analyzing a colossal personality like Tagore through a narrow understanding.
We must first know why Tagore was opposed to nationalism in the first place. This must
compel us to raise another question, was he opposed to every form of nationalism? As long as
nationalism is serving the interest of the poor and marginals of the society, Tagore has no
issue with that, however, Indian nationalism emerged in response to our fight against British
colonialism and was emancipatory in nature. In the case of India, the major objective of
nationalists was to throw British rule out of India. Here again, we must understand that
Tagore also criticized the British rule but not the ground that they are foreigners and therefore
should be thrown away, but because of dehumanization of the Indian society and unequal
treatment meted to Indians by British dispensation. As long as the nationalism does not have
the features like self-aggrandizement, the enemy within and outside, aggressive posturing,
and feeling of hatred, Tagore would have no objection. A deeper analysis of these questions
would help us to understand Tagore and particularly his version of critique of nationalism.
In this chapter, we are going to understand first what we really mean when we say
nationalism. This would enable us to understand different versions of nationalism.
Subsequently, we will explore on what ground Tagore rejected some of the ideas of
nationalism that was very popular during the anti-British struggles in India. We will also
explore Tagore’s idea of cosmopolitan thoughts that is inextricably linked with his critique of
nationalism.
7.2 Learning Objectives
1. The student will be able to learn Tagore ideas on Nationalism.
2. The student can differentiate between different forms of Nationalism.
3. Students will be able to relate the various concepts of Nationalism with contemporary
social and political developments.
7.3 Background
What is Nationalism? Nationalism has been conceptualized in different ways and forms.
India’s renowned Economist, Dadabhai Naoroji talked about the scenario of ‘drain of wealth’
from India and demonstrated how British dispensation is taking raw material and labor at a
cheap price from India and selling finished goods at high prices thereby destroying our
economy and cottage industries. [i] This constitutes largely an economic form of nationalism.
This however does not mean that Naoroji was limited to economic form nationalism only,
rather he spoke at length about the political form of nationalism prevalent at the time.
Political nationalism was primarily concerned with issues related to governance, rule, and
right of ownership. When thinkers like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and others

79
demanded that India must be ruled by Indians and that the British rule had no moral authority
to rule over India, this came largely under the framework of political nationalism.
Benedict Anderson has traced the factors and circumstances that led to the emergence of
nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries where he conceptualized nation as an ‘Imagined
community’.[ii] He said so because in any nation it is apparently difficult for every people to
know each other but still they have a sense of belonging, a feeling of oneness towards each
other despite having differences based on race, region, or language. If we apply this
phenomenon in case of India, we can see people living in state of Bihar may not know a man
of Kerala, yet we all rejoice together with the sense of achievements of each player, scientist
or academician for their national or global recognitions, no matter which part of the country
they come from. So, what binds us? It is in this ‘imagined community’ that we all are Indians
which provides us with a sense of belongingness.
Rabindranath Tagore was born in the second half of the 19th century when the nationalist
movement in India was gaining momentum. Bengal was at the forefront of the swadeshi
movement. To weaken the movement, the British Raj divided Bengal in 1905 which further
strengthened the agitation of Indians against them. Tagore initially supported these
movements through his songs, poetry, lectures, writings etcetera. [iii] But when the movement
started taking extremist measures Tagore started withdrawing his support from nationalist
agitations. Tagore was a follower of Ahimsa and tolerance; he was against the nationalist
measures of burning foreign goods as part of the swadeshi movement as it was difficult for
the poor to buy costly handmade country products. He was also against the use of violent
methods like bombing by the youth of the country in the spirit of protecting the motherland.
He ultimately withdrew his support from the mainstream freedom movement.
During his tours around the world, he gave several lectures and discussions on what
substitute measure he proposes and why he is opposing the nationalist struggles. Tagore
insisted on how India needed a revolution from within instead of following the revolution
blindly. He says that masses first need to be educated for self-rule and then they should ask
for political freedom. [iv] He clearly states that India’s problem is social and not political in
nature. In his lecture in the United States, he explains how India is a heterogeneous country
that is different from Europe and the present age requires people to acquire their higher self
of self-sacrifice and humanity over the greed for materialistic growth.
On one hand, Tagore criticizes the measures taken by the Indian nationalist in the
freedom struggle, and on the other hand, he criticizes the West for its treatment towards
India. He had great belief in the higher self of human nature and was hopeful that the youth
would rather look for real freedom of duty and sacrifice for the betterment of the society
instead of mere political freedom which was influenced by the Western ideals of
independence and materialistic gains.
7.4 India’s Race Problem
As mentioned above Tagore directly states that India’s real problem is social and not
political. The European model of freedom and revolution cannot be applied to India as both
80
the regions are socially different from one another. He explains how European society has
racial unity unlike India where being a large sub-continent, it has people of several races
living together for centuries. In Europe, resources were limited so they created unity amongst
themselves and followed a civilization based on commercial and political aggressiveness.
These countries then plundered upon other countries for material gains using violence against
other races. Earlier they used to fight with each other and now they are united and exploiting
the world.
But in India, we had our own problem- the race problem. Indians had an abundance of
resources that is why they never invaded the outside world for their survival or sustenance.
Due to this they never had to unite to attack other countries for resources. Several races came
together and lived together. Tagore calls the nationalists to look into this factor as India
lacked racial unity, unlike European civilizations. Instead, India used the caste system as a
measure to deal with racial differences.
India has to fight the problem of caste. It has used the caste system as a solution for
centuries to live together but still maintain the boundaries amongst each other. This system
helped them in avoiding friction for a very long time but this solution is not permanent. The
caste system which was introduced to create an accommodating environment has now
become so rigid that it is a system of repression now. When asked why India is a caste-ridden
society? Tagore answers that it was due to the teachings of saints like Guru Nanak, Kabir, Sri
Chaitanya, and many more who imparted the spirit of toleration among the people. The caste
system of India was formed in the spirit of this tolerance.
But what is the solution given by Tagore to solve this caste issue in India? Tagore
focuses on the importance of education in eradicating the long-sustaining caste-based
suppression by the elites over the untouchables and poor. India cannot gain its freedom until
it eradicates this social repression. He argues what is the purpose of any political freedom if
the elites in the society thrive on the pains of the poor. Nationalists should be more focused
on working towards social cooperation in the country through imparting the right education
rather than using violence as a symbol of strength and pride.
7.5 Comparing India and the World
While giving his lecture in America Tagore talks about the similarities between India and
America. In America, like India, the whites also have a caste-ridden ideology which is why
they mistreated the Negroes and Red Indians. America needs to solve its problem first before
questioning India and India needs to solve this problem from within instead of following
western ideals. India is a heterogeneous society like America which is why the race problem
needs to be dealt with first. The western models cannot be applied to India. In the case of
Australia and America, the indigenous people were essentially exterminated. Europe also
invaded multiple countries and lost its humanity altogether. Whenever confronted with the
problem of heterogeneity Europe essentially ignored the situation altogether or shun the
people down to slavery. India has an opportunity to uphold its true values of moral high self,

81
fighting for the upliftment of all. India needs to choose the path of humanity to achieve true
greatness.
In his speech to the Americans, he proposes the importance of the American people in
holding the torch for the West. He explains how America is a heterogeneous society like
India does not have its differences rooted deeply in it. It still has the hope to represent the
West in this scientific age and focus more on humanity, peace, and the creation of
universalism. [v] It should not opt for the ways adopted by Europe who choose the path of
violence instead of cooperation and destroy the countries in its way. According to Tagore,
Englishmen can never truly understand the cultures of these colonies as they always
considered themselves above all. They choose pride and possession over harmony. They were
inconsiderate of the cultures and people of its colonies but America can choose another path.
Tagore bestowed the responsibility on America and called it to be more mindful of its vision
and its lessons for the world.
Tagore was focused on imparting education from our ancestors rather than our
history. He wanted his countrymen to be more considerate towards humanity rather than
fighting for the ideals of nationalism. He gives the example of Japan, which was attacking
China. He says that this use of violence by Japan is inspired by the Western civilization and
at the end of the war it will have no foundation of spiritual freedom to guide its nation. It will
ultimately exhaust its own inheritance. Europe has a different past and one cannot blindly
adopt its history to create the foundation of our future. [vi]
Earlier the geographical boundaries of countries were limited but in the new age,
these boundaries are blurred. They are not true anymore. The world is changing. The
nationalist gives examples of Switzerland being a nation-state but they forget to mention that
even after being from different races their society allows them to intermingle and intermarry.
Tagore criticized the nationalists praising western ideals on one hand and being conservative
in their own social system on the other. Indian society has physical repercussions, unlike the
West due to its caste system. We have to solve the problem of heterogeneity and we have to
prove our humanity. India must realize that it has a law of heredity in the caste system but
ignores the law of mutation. Still, Tagore believes that India has the power of morality and
the strength to suffer for truth. According to him, the men of real thought and power will
attain spiritual unity and preach it. [vii]
But who will lead this mission? According to Tagore “those who are gifted with the
moral power of love and vision of spiritual unity, who have the least feeling of enmity against
the aliens and the sympathetic insights to place themselves in the position of others will be
the fittest to take their permanent place in the age that is lying before us, and those who are
constantly developing their instinct of fight and intolerance of aliens will be eliminated”.15
Here Tagore answers the question of who can lead the world towards perfection. He has a
firm belief in human nature and a higher self. For him, leaders are not those who lack

15
Tagore, R. (2018). Nationalism. Germany: Outlook Verlag. Pp 42

82
toleration and use violent methods. These tendencies will not survive in the future. Leaders
should be rich in their moral power. They should have love and a vision of spiritual unity and
not intolerance.
7.6 Nationalism and Synthetic Universalism
Tagore states that he is not against any country or nation in particular. Instead, he was against
the general idea of all nations. According to Tagore the general idea of what is the nation? It
is an organized power of the whole people with the continued insistence on the population to
become strong and efficient. For Tagore, this idea drains man’s energy in attaining true moral
power. The higher self of self-sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate goal of morality to the
mechanical goal of this organization. For Tagore, men are now feeling relieved when he uses
his powers of the intellect for mechanical or commercial purposes. They find it justified to
take away the rights of other people for their material gains. For him, this ideology is a device
that perpetuates slavery around the world. For Tagore, the idea of this nation is based on
ideals of commercialization which thrive on the poor. He states “we have seen in our
everyday life even small organizations of businesses and profession produce callousness of
feeling in men who are not naturally bad, and we can well imagine what a moral havoc it is
causing in a world where whole peoples are furiously organizing themselves for gaining
wealth and power.”
For Tagore Nationalism was a great menace. He talks about why he withdrew his
support from the National movement as the Indian political parties who earlier had few
grievances against the colonial power started asking for autonomy. [viii] They lacked any real
program or constructive measures, they just wanted higher representation. India does not
need begging; it needs constructive growth from within. He also criticized the extremists in
the Indian National Congress who are blindly following the revolution and adopting violent
measures for their nation but in reality, ignoring the real sufferings of its own people. He calls
the youth to control its temperament before it is too late. The Indians still ride on their high
horses by calling their rigid social organization its glory but it will cause a state of paralysis
for India. They criticize the educated classes for their inability to solve the problem in our
social structure. Their social structure is perfect and that is why they only work towards
political ends and not social.
What must be done? As mentioned earlier, the geographical limitations of the world
are not true anymore. The Idea of Nationalism breeds separatism. Tagore rejected the idea of
a Nation and called for the federation of man. He believed in the cosmopolitan world where
people will iron out their differences and follow the path of humanity which is their true
higher self. He firmly believes that there is a harmony of completeness in humanity. There
will be a world where the downtrodden will not suffer anymore and all will gain freedom
with unity. For Tagore “when a man does not realize his kinship with the world, he lives in a
prison house whose walls are alien to him”. [ix] Men must rise above the idea of nationalism
and seek universalism and humanity.

83
7.7 Tagore on Commercialism
Tagore talks about how in terms of industrial regeneration, India is not a champion. The
British did not enable or encourage the growth of the industrial sector in India. They focused
more on keeping India centered around agriculture. India has an abundance of food to feed
countries around the world but the British government never made it strong enough to
compete with global commercial organizations. According to Tagore, India lacked any
industrial originality. Tagore himself was not fond of this commercialization. For him, this
model of industries and commerce lacks the beauty of perfection and truth in it. For him,
nature is God’s creation and it is beautiful but this model is hideous in nature. Beauty and
truth require self-control for growth but this system only has greed in itself. The sole purpose
is now to produce and consume. Tagore states “it is this ugly vulgarity of commerce which
brought upon it the censure of contempt in our earlier days when men had the leisure to have
an unclouded vision of the perfection of humanity.” Earlier the men used to be ashamed of
mere money-making and focused more on what morals they impart in society but now in this
scientific age, this tendency or lower instincts are considered great. Today man is more
focused on the organization of machines and not on building higher moral instincts. The
ideals of commercialization and industrialization reduce a man to draining their energy into
creating material objects and ignoring the significance of true moral self of sacrifice which
can help the society to foster. This euro-centric model is driven by violence in the name of
growth. It justifies the system of greed in the name of survival and creates a society with
moral havoc. This new model is taking the real happiness of people and reducing them to the
bare minimum.
For Tagore, this commercialization was a menace to humanity that stopped a man
from reaching perfection. He rejected the organization of commercialization and called
everyone to look above the temptations. [x] To be spiritually and internally rich and live a
simple life on the outside. He calls upon the youth to cherish Indian values. To build their
foundation on social cooperation and not economic exploitation. He wants the Indians to not
accept the conditions and exploitations imposed on them, as they are traits of the lazy and
weak and Indians are not weak. He refuses to believe in man’s inability to foster harmony. He
believes that if a man could free himself from the clutches of greed and selfishness, they are
serving the whole of humankind and attain real spiritual freedom. He admits not being an
economist but still understands that the basis of real freedom is not to leave the poor behind
to die so that the rich can flourish.
7.8 Problematic of Indian Nationalism
Tagore was very critical of the prevailing idea of Nationalism in India after the Surat split of
Congress in 1907. He was a patriotic person but the general idea of nationalism spreading
across India during this period was very problematic for Tagore. [xi] Firstly, he argues how the
dominant understanding of Nationalism in India is based on the European understanding of
Nation. In the Eurocentric understanding of Nation, Nations are above the citizens. This idea

84
is very political in its nature. But, in countries like India and China society is a social binding
which is driven by the culture of ‘Dharma’. Tagore explains how this Eurocentric
understanding is driven by greed and materialistic gains but this is not what India needs. India
needs to work from within to create a society where morals prevail over the material. India
should try to work towards restoring its spiritual genius. According to Tagore, the West may
have gained materially but lost spiritual freedom. The West built the foundation of
imperialism and colonialism for the world and failed to work towards spiritual gain and
cooperation. He talked about the ‘spirit of the west where the West should cooperate with the
East and learn from its cultural richness. He calls countries to aspire for a culturally rich
society rather than power and a colony. [xii]
Secondly, the role of extremists is further perpetuating an understanding of narrow
Nationalism. The methods adopted by the Extremist Nationalists saddened Tagore as these
means were not wise decisions and will sow the seed of hatred. He was not very fond of
seeing the youth of his country trapped in the shackles of anger and hate. He explains how the
ideals taken by the Extremists were inspired by western ideals of Freedom where they just
wanted autonomy from the British. The Extremists had no concern towards the real problems
of people who are disadvantaged, malnourished, untouchables, or poor. He states “I am
willing to serve my country, but my worship I reserve for a right which is far greater than
country. To worship my country as a God is to bring a curse upon it,” in his famous novel
The Home and the World. [xiii]
Thirdly, Tagore was not hateful towards the British. According to him, most of the
nationalist leaders of the period merely wanted the British to leave the country and give
autonomy to Indians but Tagore was not supporting this argument as the British
administration was useful in making laws and cultural changes in India which helped the
untouchables and women. This may be countered on many grounds but one must realize that
Tagore is not the one who supports any hatred and violence. Through his arguments, he was
trying to build cooperation between India and Britain so that more work can be done towards
creating a peaceful international community and real solutions to eradicate poverty for the
poor. He was against growing hatred and enmity amongst people. For him, cooperation is the
only method to bring substantial progress. The growing idea of Nationalism which was
spreading enmity amongst Indians and the British was a problematic trend for Tagore. [xiv]
Fourthly, Tagore also found the practice of burning foreign goods problematic. During
the Swadeshi[xv] movement, the practice of burning foreign goods manufactured in industries
was burned as a symbol of non-cooperation. There was a demand to use goods made from
Indian handloom industries to support the Swadeshi movement. Tagore was not supportive of
this practice as these boycott movements were not very helpful for the poor for buying Indian
handmade products was more costly than machine-made goods. The practice of boycott was
affecting the poor and marginalized people. He was very keen on providing real education to
children and rural reconstruction in his ‘Visva Bharati’ foundation; he attempted to create an
alternative to colonial education. He did not agree with the idea of boycotting state-sponsored

85
schools in the name of the freedom struggle as it would impact the education of children who
are the future of this country.
In his letter to C.F. Andrews, Tagore writes by boycotting government schools, our
students, ‘are bringing their offering of sacrifice to what? Not to a fuller education but to a
no education.’ “I remember the day, during the Swadeshi (freedom) movement in Bengal,
when a crowd of young students came in the first-floor hall of our Vichitra House. They said
to me that if I would order them to leave their schools and colleges they would instantly obey.
I was emphatic in my refusal to do so… the reason of my refusing to advise those students to
leave their school was because the anarchy of mere emptiness never tempts me… I could not
lightly take upon myself the tremendous responsibility of a mere negative programme which
would uproot their life from its soil, however thin and poor that soil might be”. [xvi]
Although Tagore and Gandhi had many differences about the way India should
approach its true liberation, both revered each other. Mahatma called Tagore, ‘Gurudeva’ and
it was Tagore who addressed Gandhi as ‘Mahatma’ for the first time. Tagore, despite
disapproving of the Gandhian Ideas of spinning of Charkha, Swadeshi movement, non-
cooperation movement, and ways to achieve internationalism, called Gandhi a ‘great leader
of men’.
7.9 Summary
When the feeling of nationalism was at its peak across the world including in India, the
country saw Tagore making some strong reservations against it with reasonable grounds.
Even when Gandhi had gained popular currency and was trying to perpetuate his programs
like Non- and Swadeshi as part of a national movement, Tagore firmly expressed his
difference of opinion. He never compromised in what he believed about the idea of a nation,
the idea of India, and his profound critique of Indian nationalism. While people often mistake
Tagore as the polar opposite to the idea of nationalism per se… However, if nationalism is
about taking the marginals, the poor, and women on board and bringing them into the
mainstream, empowerment of children through education and removal of poverty, harmony
and not enmity between two nations. he would have no objection with such an idea of
nationalism. But as we saw, Indian nationalism emerged popularly as a response to British
rule and was full of hatred against British people, students sacrificing education for taking
part in movements, violence, and negligence of the interests of the marginals. Tagore
disapproved of this version of Indian nationalism as well.
7.10 Practice Questions
1. What do you understand by the term nationalism? Write the features of western
nationalism.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….…..

86
 2. Write a short note on Tagore opposition to Indian nationalism.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….…...
3. Why Tagore disapproved swadeshi movement and non-cooperation led by Mahatma
Gandhi?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….…..
7.11 References
[i]
Rajan, M. S. (1969). The Impact of British Rule in India. Journal of Contemporary
History, 4(1), 89–102.
[ii]
Redfield, M. (1999). Imagi-Nation: The Imagined Community and the Aesthetics of
Mourning. Diacritics, 29(4), 58–83.
[iii]
CATLIN, G. E. G. (1961). Rabindranath Tagore. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts,
109(5060), 613–628.
[iv]
Somjee, A. H. (1961). The Political Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore. The Indian
Journal of Political Science, 22(1/2), 134–143.
[v]
Vallauri, M. (1961). The Universal Faith of Rabindranath Tagore. East and West, 12(2/3),
119–121.
[vi]
Munshi, S. (2011). Universalising Europe: In the Spirit of Rabindranath Tagore. Asian
Journal of Social Science, 39(3), 296–303.
[vii]
Chaudhuri, S.(201). “Tagore, Nationalism and Imperialism.” In Tagore and Nationalism,
by K.L Tuteja and Kaustav Chakraborty (Editors). Springer
[viii]
Quayum, M. A. (2006). Imagining “One World”: Rabindranath Tagore’s Critique of
Nationalism. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 7(2), 33–52.
[ix]
Tagore, R. (1925). Sadhana: The realisation of life. New York: Macmillan.
[x]
Chattopadhyay, G., & Chattopadhyaya, G. (1991). Rabindranath Tagore On The Problems
of Nationalism & Communalism. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 52, 778–783.
[xi]
Prakash, A. (1995). Tagore and Nationalism [Review of The Illegetimacy of Nationalism,
by A. Nandy]. Social Scientist, 23(1/3), 128–131.
[xii]
Lewisohn, L. (2017). Rabindranath Tagore’s Syncretistic Philosophy and the Persian Sufi
Tradition. International Journal of Persian Literature, 2(1), 2–41.

87
[xiii]
Chaudhuri, R. (2008). Tagore’s Home and the World [Review of Towards Freedom:
Critical Essays on Rabindranath Tagore’s “Ghare Baire” / “The Home and the World,” by
S. Sengupta, S. Roy, & S. Purkayastha]. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(50), 23–25.
[xiv]
Patnaik, P. (2016). “Two Concepts of Nationalism.” In What the Nation Really Needs to
Know, by Janaki Nair, Mohinder Singh and Mallarika Sinha Roy Rohit Azad. HarperCollins
Publishers India.
[xv]
Gandhi’s idea of Swadeshi aimed at multiple things. First, it was conceived as a powerful
tool to make British products valueless which would then negatively impact the British
economy significantly. This had direct impacts on Indian commerce and small-scale
industries. Through this program, Gandhi wanted to revitalize the dying Indian cottage and
other small-scale industries. Thirdly, Gandhi envisaged this program to make the individual
self-sufficient and less dependent on British goods and services. Gandhi saw that if we
cooperate with the current commerce policies of the British Authority it would render the
Indian economy and society worthless to the best possible extent.
[xvi]
Gandhi, Tagore, R., & Bhattacharya, S. (1997). The Mahatma and the Poet: Letters and
debates between Gandhi and Tagore, 1915-1941. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India.

88
 Unit-8

Muhammed Iqbal: Community

Dr. Prashant Barthwal
Dharmendra Kumar

8. Structure
8.1 Objectives
8.2 Introduction
8.3 Life Sketch
8.4 Iqbal: Ideas and Thoughts
8.5 The Human Being and the Oxymoron of Revelation
8.6 Nationalism
8.7 Community
8.8 Ideal Community
8.9 Sum Up
8.10 Practice Questions
8.11 Suggested Readings

8.1 Objectives
This chapter tries to understand the Iqbal ideas and philosophy of community, Nationalism,
nature of self, human beings, and the oxymoron of revelation. It also highlights Muhammad
Iqbal’s life sketch and their significant works. It also deals with the ideological construction
of communities and their political actions. And finally, it describes the Ideal concept of
community with a rational understanding of Muhammad Iqbal.
8.2 Introduction
Mohammad Iqbal is generally denoted as ‘Allama’ Iqbal for the cause that he was considered
one of the substantial philosophers in the middle of the Muslims in the first half of the 20th
century. However, he is extensively unidentified for his Urdu and Persian poetry. On the
other hand, Iqbal was a practitioner of politics as well. Among his poetry and politics, he was
competent to blend rudiments of idea as well, in which he had a traditional exercise in
Germany in the early 20th century. In his early life, Allama underway his profession as a poet.
Later on, he acquired gigantic ripeness. He was one of the Urdu poets whose composition
requisite introduction for enhanced understanding. Rather than his poetry, his social, cultural,
and political experience is also significant for consideration.

89
 As a poet, thinker, educationalist, political activist, and social agitator, Iqbal is
unparalleled in his flexibility and extent of knowledge and revelation. He was the last and
utmost philosopher of the significant ‘Aligarh movement’ that brought a paradigm change in
the cognizance of Indian Muslims and transmuted their fortune. Though, Iqbal’s historical
place is not imperfect to his character as a modernist, reformist Muslim philosopher in India.
In my understanding, he is the most exceptional poet-thinker of the ecosphere of Islam, and
possibly of the realm in general, subsequently the death of his spiritual guide Maulana
Jalaluddin Rumi in 1273.
However, Iqbal is outstanding in many ways. He was a poet and philosopher of
tremendous importance. In reality, he was capable of conglomerating poetry and philosophy
and a prodigious achievement. His exact nature, poetry, working through symbols, eludes
proclamation and favors recommendation, while his philosophy construction with rational
classifications and thoughts demands preciseness in view and manifestation. Consequently, in
logic, a poet-philosopher is an absurdity.
But, this absurdity discovers its foundation in human nature itself; but human nature’s
rinsing both towards and away from a definition of thought and emotion. This psychosomatic
occurrence has originated in various jargon in literature and philosophy history. From time to
time, it has steered to poetry attractive philosophical or a philosophy attractive poetical,
occasionally to a wide divergence among poetry and philosophy. The construction of poetry
and philosophy in an include whole- for instance, in the case of Rumi, and Allama Iqbal is a
remarkable triumph. In some ways, Iqbal is not just outstanding but inimitable. No poet or
thinker in the domain’s history has enthused millions of people as he did. What he found
notable accomplishment, for, as Alfred Lord Tennyson stated, ‘a song that nerves a nation’s
heart is in himself a deed’. Since the beginning phase, he became the voice of the Indian
Muslims who sensed that ‘a captive bird’ partaking lost their political place, economic
prospect, and cultural sovereignty to the British invaders. Iqbal unstated their approaches and
symbolized them emotionally. Though, his duty was to stimulate and galvanize Indian
Muslims who had to develop profoundly downhearted in the outcome of the distressing
actions of 1857-8 that had made them the foremost object of Britishers’ rage and inequitable
legislation. His ardent voice made them mindful of what they could accomplish
independently and communally by mounting their selfhood. He inspired them to free
themselves from the slavery of colonialism and imperialism and to contest other practices of
authoritarian mechanisms, such as conservatism, totalitarianism (like religious, political, and
economic), tribalism, intolerance, caste system, and bondage. This apprehension is replicated
in considerably of Iqbal’s text. He believed ardently in self-determination, which he
deliberated to be ‘the very lungful of significant living.’ Considering passionately human
impartiality and the right to human beings to self-respect, justice, and autonomy, Iqbal
endowed the discriminated to stand up and be reckoned.

90
8.3 Life Sketch
Muhammad Iqbal was born November 1878 in the Punjab city of Sailkot. His grandfather,
Sheikh Rafiq, came to settle down in this town along with his three brothers, in 1857,
following the instance of several Kashmiri Muslims pressed into outcaste in the Punjab
region by the political condition in this province. The biographies designate that his father
was a tailor by trade. His father was in place to educate his children in a Sufi Islamic custom,
whereas supporting the total cost of a modern education, which he was unable to fulfill
himself, was capable of thru his children on the trail of excellent learning.
Therefore, Iqbal’s older brother, Ata Muhammad (160-1940), embarked on his
profession as an engineer though his younger brother was more of a mythical type who was
profoundly pretentious, at Murray College in his intuitive city, by the instructions of Maulvi
Sayyid Mir Hasan (1844-1929), a mentor mostly well skilled in Arabic and Persian writings.
At the end of the first years of his education, he held a lecturer position in philosophy at the
government college in Lahore before prompting a decisive phase in his life by going to
Europe to pursue tertiary education. The later period of Iqbal considers a stage of ‘ignorance
and madness.’ The poetic phase of Iqbal attains a visionary quality in the Persian language,
which was the language of Islamic tradition instead of Urdu. In this language, he created the
poem ‘The Secret of the Self’ in 1915; after this, he published a trilogy in Persian, known as
‘Mysteries of Selflessness, and the third construction was ‘The Message from the East.’
This new phase brought a political disturbance in the life of Iqbal; consequently, he was
elected to the Punjab Legislative Council. And He was appointed the President of the annual
meeting of the Islamic League in 1926. At this time, his philosophy symbolizes idols
signified by race or nationality and declares himself evidently in favor of an independent
Islamic state. This theology develops the idea of Pakistan. Conclusively, in 1930 his religious
beliefs transformed into the reconstruction of religious philosophy in Islam, and he
contributed philosophical manifestation of his thought in writing style. However, his highest
form of poetry reconstruction will be conceded based on the declaration of self via self-
esteem. Subsequently, after this, the whole idea constituted the result of ‘the walk towards the
self.’
8.4 Iqbal Ideas and Thoughts
Allama Iqbal’s contribution to modern Muslim thought and philosophy was not only his
persistent determination to comprehend the impression of modernity on Islam and Muslims;
however, his kinds of literature also divulge his huge fights to come to relationships with a
modern Muslim self and production of personhood in the early 2oth century. Iqbal was
utterly conscious that ideas and thoughts and the lifeworlds that humans dwell were not
absolutes but relatively fabricated: societies were re-tooled abstractly and mechanically;
communities were relentlessly recreated in a cycle with the development of the fantasies and
mental state of the individual.

91
 Thus, Iqbal could positively affect plea Muslims to build a new thought. He carved
challengingly saying: ‘nor can the conceptions of the religious system, swathed in the jargon
of a lifeless metaphysics, be of any assistance to those who materialize to retain a distinct
rational background.’ He completely unstated the fact that the lived circumstances of each
period produced their formation of myths and metaphysics, even though there was also a
series of ideas, or what we would call the endurance and incoherence of thought. When Iqbal
presented approximately summaries of the views of founding numbers who, in one way or
another, had modernized religious philosophies in Islam in the previous, he was trying to
carve Muslims to find the optimal set of thoughts for the human condition as proficient in his
day. In his precarious readings of the scripture, religious beliefs, and morals in his innovative
lectures published as ‘The Reconstruction of Religious of Philosophy in Islam, Iqbal
presented clues and precisely recommended paths that he anticipated others would follow. In
the realm of Islam, Iqbal anticipated audaciously ensue to the ‘work of reconstruction,’ which
was more than ‘measly correction to the modern situation of life.’ Reassuring the forward
cohort of thinkers, he wrote with hope and firmly that the responsibility earlier than the
present-day Muslims is subsequently mammoth. He has to reconsider the gadget of Islam
without totally breaching the past. He was probably the first Muslim who identified the
instinct of a new spirit in him.
The Human Being and the Oxymoron of Revelation
Iqbal made the idea of self a bedrock notion for Muslim selfhood. He transformed the Persian
concept of Khudi by robbing of its negative implications of Selflessness and egoism. He had
used two predominant senses in Persian and Urdu, whereas Khudi into an affirmative and
productive version. Iqbal recreated and then diverted Khudi in numerous uses and methods,
constructing it as the core of his poetic and political aesthetics. In this intellect, Iqbal formed
a rational masterstroke by cyclically waving the idea of selfhood and self as the indispensable
component of the human ailment to his multiple spectators. In mourning of self and selfhood,
the human was a just crust. However, his rational motion was carefully rectified; it was
instinctive, caught among the security of custom and the self-questioning instincts of
modernism. He was completely conscious that to problem or change the genetic notion of the
self would have manifold traditional and philosophical inferences. However, in historical
context, he was aware of how Muslim spiritualists, thinkers, and the religious an idea of self
in every phase. He believed that understanding human beings and the human situation was an
issue that pensive individuals and societies in the contemporary time and continues.
Moreover, across the 20th century, the scholars of religion, philosophy, literature, indeed all
thinkers in the human sciences, social sciences, and even in the natural sciences, dripped a
moral extent of ink on one subject, precisely the subject of the human self.
It would not be a hyperbole to say that in his several poems and his path-breaking script
reform, entire energies cumulatively indexed Iqbal’s transmuting voice to elucidate how the
self worked in the realm. In his construction, Khudi outlined how selfhood steered the
domain. His notion of self was not an imagined, spiritual, or just metaphysical production of

92
identity but an actual quest. Subsequently, Iqbal’s philosophical tool, khudi, roused the
mythopoetic echelon in philosophy. At this juncture, the sorts of ‘true’ and ‘untrue’ were
inappropriate. Iqbal stated a non-empirical reality for khudi. Nowadays, khudi was part of the
new abstract pattern that the Polish theorists Leszek Kolakwski termed as a non-empirical
undefined reality’.
In Iqbal’s understanding, selfhood is about pollinating being too evident new methods of
life: ontology. Iqbal did not offer any comprehensive interpretation of ontology; however,
neither is it vague in his text. Ontology, the inquiry of being in the realm, encompasses his
poetics and is certainly not lacking from his prospect. His essential queries were entrenched
not only in Renovation but also in his poetry and his political engagement. Iqbal’s primary
task of thinking for open up new landscapes of philosophy. His unique interpretation was to
seek ‘mystical bases for society, which he called a clarion call. He stated that ‘humanity
requires three things today.’ It needs ‘a mystical understanding of the cosmos, divine
deliverance of the individual, and elementary code of a worldwide significance pointing the
development of human society on divine origin.
The core of that sole Islamic philosophy is a revelation. In revelation, the human being
can comprehend their self-development. But one will have to be tolerant to hold Iqbal’s
precise logic of what he preordained by ‘revelation.’ According to Iqbal, a human being was
a psychic being, a considering animal whose mysticism will not understand in revelation. It is
vital to grip on Iqbal’s idea of revelation. He enunciates in distinct ways. The theme of
human construction, he understood, was the human soul. However, Iqbal believes that
inspiration is a universal property of life. He clarified his views, revelation in Islam is a
product of inspiration. In this means, revelation becomes a metonymy for inspiration;
whether somatic and animal development or a human being getting ‘light from the infernal
pits of life,’ this explains the inspiration of wavering character of rendering to needs of the
receiver or the wants of the species.
In another sense, for Iqbal, ‘Quran’ stances for a positive ripeness of inspiration. And the
poesis or the constructing the idea of positive inspiration is one that he trails concerning
‘complete self-consciousness’ that is correspondingly reliant on human means. It is the
inspiration to be utterly dependent on self. His central interpretation of the Muslim revelation
is the prominence of nature and history as the foundation of human awareness or bases of the
self.
Self-Making
According to his poetics constructions, Iqbal is possibly more obvious about his metaphysical
ambitions and aspirations for rebuilding. His real aspirations were the Islamic and Persian
mythopoesis. The first mythopoesis is a Quran orientation to ‘the invisible world and visible
world.’ As per my understanding, both aspirations were quite similar to the above-defined as
imperceptible (unconditional) and perceptible (conditional reality).

93
 The second allegory was a reference to the cup of prophecy that endorsed the king to
perceive the actions of the world. In contrast, Iqbal wanted to selflessly stake his complete
decanter, not only a cup-full, with the world but also with another world. This is the cause
why Iqbal was not pleased to be a thinker in the appearance of logical theorists; he was
aggravated with cultured interpretations of ontologies and epistemologies. However, even he
had mastered this discourse in “the development of metaphysics in Persia. His passion was a
substitute that soaked in a different type of philosophy, an itinerant approach that trails big
problems, such as: how may one live? It is an idea that advanced life with an ontology that
presented ineffable prospects rather than retail clarifications. In mysteries of selfhood, he
transcribes sand that my being is brighter than other’s cup; it is partaking in the world’s yet
unborn incidents.
History and Divinity
The keystones of Iqbal’s philosophy were built on the necessity of logic of history and hold
its essence, to advance critical wisdom of the time in which one is living and have an intellect
to how one endures with the historical and varies from it in expressions of thought. But more
prominently, his solicitation that Muslims must take rational philosophy seriously. However,
Iqbal’s notion of history cannot be delinked from revelation previously, and the idea of
divinity, which earns some recurrence to understand the radical superiority of Iqbal’s
reformists’ philosophy and a theme minimum appeared in Iqbalian erudition. Human action
for Iqbal was cast in the appearance of an idol of history. This appearance derived from the
theology of Muhi al-Din Ibn Arabi. The impeccable Man, Iqbal plea the Man of reliance, was
a character of venture, audaciousness, and courage. Why? Because the impeccable Man is the
one who is dependent on sensitivity. Sensitivity is the crux of predisposition and the
quintessence of motivation. Iqbal cast-off various terms to pronounce sensitivity- Ishq (love),
Yagin (inevitability), and Iman (belief). Sensitivity empowered a positive kind of
transgressive behavior and searching for conventional standards that could overlay the way to
comprehend the perspective of the human being in our age and create the human logical
relative to custom. This was the cause Iqbal attacked with the canon of destiny, the non-
appearance of reason in Muslim divinity, and the conservatism of the caretakers of the
religion. In Psalms of Persia, he infrequently confronts God, challenging the celestial
pleasure to honor heaven at will and not based on humans’ moral conduct and their impartial
rewards. By the equitable rewards, he uncovers his appetite and forecasts that he will face the
disdain of theologians who futilely comprehend the intricacy of devotion.
Nationalism
Muhammad Iqbal had a robust intellect of Patriotism before visiting Europe. For example, his
legendary song ‘Sare Jahan Se Achha Hindustan Humara’ was a decisive honor to India’s
motherland. His construction ‘Naya Shivala’ too was an instance of genuine urgings to his
nationals to give up pettymindness and cultivate broader ideas and perceptions about the
commercial life as Indians. Conversely, after he came from Europe, he appeared to produce
some revulsion for Nationalism for the reason of the means European nations were following

94
this; the time he was in Europe was an age of antagonistic Nationalism. Nations were
endeavoring to run down each other. Such remarks of Iqbal led him to consider that
Nationalism was too slender a philosophy to create an epitome of human and regional groups.
Though, he states that Nationalism in an imperial society such as India was not engaged
towards leading any other country but striving for freedom from colonial rule and
exploitement at the hand of the British. Indian Nationalism, as it was described in the path of
its development, was more liberal than Jingoistic.
Political actions
It would not be inappropriate to say that Iqbal had known for his poetry and philosophical
construction. On the other hand, gradually, he had contributed to the world of politics. He had
become acquainted with the Muslim league proliferation of the claim for separate electorates
though he was still in England in 1906. When he returned to India, he united with the
provincial Muslim league in Punjab in 1908. Muslim society led Iqbal to indulge in the
interests of Muslim securities. While engaging with the Muslim League, he discussed that
opposing the Britishers would waste time. He differed with Inay Muslims peoples and groups
actively participating in the freedom struggle and blamed them for concealing too many
Western thoughts when he understood Nationalism. In 1909, he claimed that the foundation
for nationhood was Muslim Islam itself. Instead, nationality for Muslims will not base on the
country’s material and physical concept in terms of physical epitomes. Iqbal contended that
in Islam, the soul was non-temporal and non-spatial and could not be inevitable by the
charisma and landscapes of the specific social group only. The morals of communal life for
the Muslims would be grounded on a steady understanding of Islam’s philosophies. Iqbal
thought that Islam was a powerful cause to challenge the ‘race-idea’, which had substantiated
to be the firmest wall in realizing the illumination epitome; consequently, the Muslim must
discard it. He proclaimed that it was not regional and assumed to incorporate whole
humanity, therefore excluding the restricted and slenderer restrictions. Iqbal declared that the
‘idea of a nation’ as values of human society which was in straight rattle with Islam
subsequently he thought values of human culture.
Regarding the pronunciation of his political philosophy, he differed from those who
assumed that religion could harmonize with political Nationalism. He stated that the countries
like India, where diverse beliefs existed and creating the land as the foundation of
nationhood, would in the long run. Consequently, in destabilization, the religion itself,
because of expansion, Islam will be condensed to a measly ‘moral epitome’ without its
attending social edict.
Iqbal’s contribution to the modern political process was occupied with paradoxes and
contradictions. However, his participation in the kingdom of poetic vision was far more
persistent. He died on 21st April 1938.

95
8.5 Community
Iqbal’s community can be understood in terms of ‘Ummah,’ which is the “Muslim
community” that describes an elementary concept in Islam. Ummah originates from the
Quran; they believed that their forecaster was sent by God or an individual who is the body of
a spiritual personality of reclamation. Ummah mentions a particular group frequently
partaking in religious alignment according to these considerations. For instance, the
community is commonly described as a set of humans ordered prepared in a space-time;
therefore, the Islamic neighborhood is one of the places its associates share Islamic doctrines
and responsibilities in common. It is numerous from ‘nationality’ in the western rationality of
the term because it contradicts the regional limitations.
A community is an association of persons. But it is not a measly group of persons. It is
like an entire living. In a living body, the total cannot persist discrete from one another—
individual and social actions and reactions upon each other. A community is vital if its
peoples are robust, and the individuals are fade if the community decays, whereas it is
necessary for one has to advance his individuality. He has also to generate a social
consciousness in itself. Man is a social animal. An appropriate relative among individuals and
society has to be established for the productive accomplishment of both. It is not essential to
develop character is required to cut one’s relation with social concerns. Instead, it is the
responsibility of an individual to enhance society by the prosperity of his considerations and
activities, or else his reality is insignificant and worthless. According to Iqbal, an individual
should not even abstain from sacrificing if the community gains something. A Muslim is not
a real Muslim apart from the Islamic community. In Islam, there is no slit between the divine
and social mandate.
Iqbal believed that “Islam is non-regional in eccentric, and its goal is to provide a model
for the ultimate blend of humanity.” This community is of sole personality in its moral and
fortunateness and has its legacy in the past customs of diviners. In the Quranic sense, Iqbal’s
usage of ‘millah’ in his Urdu and Persian Poetical constructions and ‘community’ in English
works of literature.
In terms of Quranic description, Iqbal cultivates his notion of the Islamic community in
rational and efficient means and revelations of its changing aspects both to spiritual and
ethical domains of life for the actualization of the will of God.
Iqbal deliberates the universality of the Muslim community. He is imaginative and
prescient that the physique and soul of the community are self-possessed of belief in the
harmonization of God, and this is the foundation of the compassion of thought among
Muslims. In an akin, Prophet Hood creates a soul of unity between Muslims because Muslims
receive a direct message from God and the responsibility of life thru the prophet. Iqbal
believed that the Muslims be liable to Prophet Hood because their millions of devotees are
fused self-posed into one religion because of the spiritualist. The entire Muslim community is

96
enticements by him. Iqbal’s notion of community is a universal community of Followers,
overpassing the whole fence of caste, color, race, nationality, and region.
Iqbal interpreted the community as a unit whose responsibilities and activities are driven
by omnipotence and the essence of triumph. The synchronization advanced through the
upsurge of some personages who delivered the community a sole persona of its own. Iqbal’s
idea of community is indulged much to his place and potentialities. Iqbal said that a country
also has its self-image, which has the vital features of individual self-respect. Vitality,
supremacy, power, the strength of will to upsurge and seriously change onward, and audacity
to contest are the elements of the mutual self of the community. Iqbal has drawn an explicit
photograph of the Muslim community in his famous poem “Shikwa” (means complaint). In
this Poem, he states that the Muslim community was gifted with the intelligence of,
determination, and essence of the coup; throughout the time, however, they were in the
margin, the Muslims combatted with hegemony and energy to indulge the message of God.
Iqbal set ideals and the philosophies of the Muslim community with complete efficiency
in his poetical constructions, where he describes in different terms “oneness of God,” i.e.,
called as Tawhid and “Prophethood” is known as Risalah and “brotherhood” as Akhuwah are
the vital doctrines of the Muslim community.
Regarding Tawhid, Iqbal argues that firmness to the faith in one God, single principle,
single truth, and moving onwards to this single cosmic objective. Tawhid states that Iqbal’s
central belief ties Muslims in a specific neighborhood where they can have a wonderful and
entire verbal exchange of their divinely sensible life. Stable assurance in divinity that changes
homogeneity in both thought and performance of the community members. The subsequent
section of the Quran brings up this ideal of the community: truthfully, “community is one
religion, and I am your Aristocrat, hence worship me.”
Risalaha (Prophethood) is the second elementary and essential principle that ties the
Islamic World. He had an unshakable belief in Risalah. Iqbal interprets that it is enormous
accountability to prove the fact and supremacy of Prophet Hood and its determination in the
levitation of Prophet Muhammad. Iqbal used to be opposite to the materialistic models of the
secular community grounded on race and language and had positions for Tawhid explained
by Prophet Muhammad. They deliberated it the company and high-quality material of the
Islamic community.
Iqbal reflects the foundation of the Muslim community in the devotion to Prophet
Muhammad by means of affirming: “the critical metamorphosis amid the Muslim community
and distinct communities of the world resides in the atypical notion of nationality. Not solely
the concord of language or use of or the forty of past monetary time that establishes the
fundamental principle of our nationality. It could not be the specific interpretation of the
cosmos and partake the similar historic customized that we are members of the society
created with the aid of the Prophet of Islam. Islam dislikes material restrictions and bases its
nationality on a decently immaterial notion, actualized in a huge theoretical team of true

97
characters. It is not reliant for its precepts on the appeal and uprightness of positive
individuals; in its spirit, it is non-temporal, non-spatial.”
The third fundamental and significant principle of the Muslim community is
Brotherhood. Humanity, an object of interrelationships and Islam’s supervision, is entirely
powerful in this purview. Brotherhood is, therefore, qualified to make more substantial
equality, peace, and coordination in the world. It instills love and Brotherhood between
devotees and seeks to symphonically apprehend the Lord’s will in all domains of life.
Brotherhood does not lead to material supremacy and superiority over the other Muslims. The
entire Muslim world had unified in terms of belief and ethical obligations. Iqbal’s writings
propounded that destiny is the secret of Islam and the worldwide Brotherhood and plenty of
love by poetry and his prose.
Ideal community
Ideal human beings construct the perfect community. Islam organized God and the world
together, training for the consciousness of an ideal society. Iqbal envisioned this character of
religion in modeling the ideal human society. Iqbal, in his seventh lecture, questions himself
that “Is Religion Possible” he states that both jingoism and irreligious socialism, at least in
the current state of human variations, must draw upon the psychosomatic powers of hate,
mistrust, and anger which incline to deprive the soul of Man and close up his concealed base
of divine dynamism. Neither the method of primitive spirituality Nationalism nor irreligious
socialism can preserve the problems of miserable humanity. Indeed, the contemporary
moment is one of the excessive catastrophes in the history of a modern nation. The modern
world stands in the necessity of organic rebirth. And religion, which in its more significant
indices is neither doctrine, nor priesthood, nor ceremonious, can only uprightly make the
modern Man for the liability of the inordinate duty which the contemporary development
science essentially includes, and reinstate to him that insolence of belief which creates him
accomplished of charming a character here and, retaining it henceforth.
The ideal man who would finally make a perfect society on earth is quite to come. “In
his statement, for the contemporary, he is an unquestionable idyllic; however, the progression
of humanity is inclining towards the fabrication of the choicest race of greater of much less
sole persons who will grow to be his suitable parents. Hence the jurisdiction of God on earth
skill the democracy of greater or much less sole individuals supervised over by using the
most sole individual possible on soil”.
Consequently, the ideal society involving ideal human beings is yet to be made through
real human struggles. And these determinations Iqbal pronounced as the ‘Knowledge of Self’
and the ‘Knowledge of God.’
Iqbal broadly deliberates these subjects in his prose and poetic constructions in Urdu and
English pieces of literature. The primary source of inspiration for Iqbal was Quranic verses
from which he picked the procedures to achieve happiness in an ideal biosphere. Therefore,
the knowledge of self is vital to the understanding of God. The Prophet Muhammad says,

98
“He who knows himself well, knows God. By observing his being and characteristics, Man
attains some knowledge of God. Therefore, he discovers in his own being reproduced in
miniature the Architect’s supremacy, knowledge, and love. This means the ability of self
becomes vital to the understanding of God. Not only is Man’s qualities a replication of God’s
means of life, but the means of existence of Man’s soul shakes some perception into God’s
means of existence. Both God and the soul are unseen, not limited to space and time, and
outside the groups of amount and eminence. Nor can the Notions of form, color, or size be
involved. The Prophet Muhammad said.
“God formed man in His resemblance.”
Therefore, Iqbal asserts that the blend of the knowledge of self and God makes the Ideal
Man: Iqbal states that the ideal Man will not replicate in the perfect community. If he
develops, the ideal society cannot occur, and for generating ideal men, he has recommended
very sure and specific ways of belief in Islam and God together.
Iqbal’s philosophies affirm transparency and belief, which are determined by present and
reconstructed Islamic moralities of human harmony, human equality, and human autonomy
that are employed under a passive, social democratic system and the ethical, societal,
political, and economic enrichment of the commonalities through appropriate teaching,
education, and appointment.
The belief that he signifies identifies the individual’s worth and self-restraints him to
provide away entirely to the amenity of God and Man. Its promises are not drained. It can
exceptionally construct a new world, the place the social order of Man is no longer firm by
way of his caste of colour, or the quantity of the share he gets, the again by means of the form
of existence he subsists; the place underprivileged tax the privileged, where human society is
mounted not on the equality of bellies but the equality of national mind, the place an
untouchable can marry the daughter of a monarch, the place private proprietorship is a
reliance and the place resources cannot be encouraged to amass therefore govern the actual
manufacturer of capital. This great optimism of our belief, he blows to, essentials freedom
from the primitive fantasies of theorists and legitimates.

8.6 Sum Up
Perhaps, Iqbal views it as a unique, however extremely divisive, personality of colonial India.
His individuality deceits his great superiority in expressing his visions in such outstanding
terms that he says seems to be the ultimate word in the theme. Also, his philosophical
arguments in first ionizing nationhood and later in contention for its subsidiary different
section on a narrow base present a confusing assessment in the minds of the individual as to
how to conceptualize and measure his influence of actions in the national movements of both
India and Pakistan. For example, his depiction of India as Sare Jahan Se Achha Hindustan
Humara relics the incomparable acclamation of the motherland by any poet in the country,
subsequently time immemorial. Correspondingly, his pronunciation of the Muslim problem

99
and its feasible explanation in the country endured, by and large, the central construction of
the religious community was constructed based on religion to provide a separate motherland
for Muslim

8.7 Practice Questions

1. Explain Mohammad Iqbal’s ideas on Nationalism and his contribution to Muslim
Thought.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
2. Analyze Iqbal’s concept of the idea of the nation.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
3. Do you think that the ideal community of Iqbal is relevant in the contemporary world?
Explain with your rational understanding.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
4. Discuss the “nature of self” concept in terms of community. Explain with your rational
understanding.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
5. Discuss the political activities of Muhammad Iqbal in the context of Nationalism.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
6. Do you think that Islamic nationhood and Nationalism are two distinct identities?
Explain.
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………………….………………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………

100
8.8 Suggested Readings
Iqbal, M. (1991). ‘Speeches and Statements’,. In S. Hay, Sources of Indain Tradition (pp. 52-
63). New Delhi: Penguin.
Iqbal, M. (2015). Muhammad Iqbal: Essays on the Reconstruction of Muslim Thought. In H.
C. Koshul. Edenburh University Press.
IQBAL, S. M. (1920 ). Secrets of the Self. London: Macmillan And Co. Limited.
L. Gordon-Polonskya. (1971). ‘Ideology of Muslim Nationalism.’ In H. Malik, Iqbal: Poet-
Philosopher of Pakistan, (pp. 108-134). New York: Columbia University Press.
Madani. (2005). Composite Nationalism and Islam. New Delhi: Manohar.

101
 Unit-9

Nationalism of V.D. Savarkar

Sheshmanee Sahu

9. Structure
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 Early Life
9.1.2 Political Career of Savarakar
9.2 Savarkar’s Views on Society
9.3 Savarkar on Social change
9.4 V.D. Savarkar’s Hindu Nationalism
9.4.1 Savarkar on Cultural Nationalism
9.4.2 Hindu Nationalism and the Indian State
9.4.3 The Prison Years
9.5 Critical Analysis
9.6 Summary
9.7 Practice Questions
9.8 References

9.1 Introduction
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was born in 1883 in Baghur, Maharashtra, a tiny hamlet outside
of Nasik. Vinayak was born into a Chitpavan Brahmin household, and his father, Damodar,
was a devout Hindu who raised his family in a strict manner. Damodar and Radhabai had
four children: Ganesh was the oldest, Vinayak was the second, Mainabai their sister, and
Narayan was the youngest. Vinayak grew up in a religious family with a devout and
dedicated mother and father, and was exposed to classics such as the Mahabharata and the
Ramayana as a youngster, which Damodar or one of his children would read aloud to him at
night. From an early age, Savarkar was familiar with a number of Hindu epic heroes,
particularly Shivaji, a Maharashtrian Hindu warrior who first stood up to Mughal colonialism
in the last half of the seventeenth century, and who served as a source of inspiration for the
progressive fervour that grew in young Savarkar.and Radhabai.
In 1926, Savarkar’s first biography was released. This text, Life of Barrister Savarkar, is
not intended to be a complete biography, but rather a critical examination of the time from
Savarkar’s birth in 1883 through his arrest and imprisonment in 1911. Life of Barrister
Savarkar is the first of three hagiographies dedicated to the revolutionary. This was authored
underneath the pen name Chitragupta. The mystery surrounding the authorship of this
particular piece is what makes it so significant. In 2013, scholar Vinayak Chaturvedi
102
published a paper on the subject, alleging that the book is, in reality, an autobiography.
However, further study is needed to confirm the reality of this assertion.
The second biography, Veer Savarkar, came out in 1950, sixteen years before Savarkar
died. Veer Savarkar is the most well-known of all the works in this category, having been
written by Dhananjay Keer. It, too, is a resounding celebration of all elements of Savarkar’s
life, and it’s worth noting that Keer based the book mainly on interviews with Savarkar.
Savarkar is depicted as a deeply patriotic Indian whose first love is his Motherland and who
has dedicated his life to helping his fellow countrymen.Countrymen from India.. In many
ways, the third book, simply titled Savarkar, is a more straightforward account of his life.
The hagiography of Keer in a concise form. Vidya Sagar Anand wrote it a year later.
Savarkar’s death is the shortest of the three. There isn’t much worth mentioning. Without any
of the more divisive parts, he is a glorious Indian hero. Despite their inconsistency, Savarkar
has been widely acknowledged as the source for information about Savarkar’s life.
9.1.1 Early Life
Vinayak’s mother died of cholera when he was nine years old, a devastating blow to the
young child who was quite attached to her. Damodar, on the other hand, took up the burden
after his wife died and became a thoughtful and loving father to his four children. Ganesh
(also known as Babarao) was Vinayak’s older brother, and he was a rebel who had a
significant impact on his younger siblings. This became even more genuine after the boys
father and uncle died of the plague that was sweeping the country in 1899. Vinayak and his
younger brothers were taken in by Babarao and his wife after being evicted from their home
without guardians, resulting in an increase in the older brother’s influence over Vinayak and
Narayan. Savarkar and his older brother created the Mitra Mela society in 1901 (Society of
Companions). Despite the fact that the Mitra Mela’s activities were on a limited scale, it was
the first of a number of revolutionary social orders with which he was associated.
Furthermore, it was around this time that Savarkar developed a strong interest in history,
particularly the lives of earlier revolutionaries. He encouraged them to “study literature
dealing with great real characters, biographies of Mazzini, Garibaldi, Napoleon Bonaparte,
and along the way, think about a little bit of Spencer and Mill” in order to attract more of his
associates and members of society to his anti-colonial goals. Savarkar has always been a
well-read person, even when he was young. He adored a lot of historical characters,
especially Shivaji and Mazzini, both of whom he composed later in life. The value of history,
according to Savarkar, was in the lessons it taught. He firmly believed, as he would later
repeat while imprisoned, that by running through the history of progressives, one might more
quickly ascertain the reasons for a revolution.
Savarkar left Nasik in 1902 to attend Fergusson College in Poona. It was here that the
Mitra Mela’s little society grew into the Abhinav Bharat. Savarkar was a deft pioneer,
influencing others around him to hold anti-colonial beliefs due to his dominant judgement
and explanation talents. The goals of Abhinav Bharat, which included a boycott of foreign
goods and strong support for the Swadeshi movement, were achieved in 1905, when Savarkar

103
staged the first burning of foreign-made clothes in India, and arranged for Lokmanya Tilak to
speak at the event. Soon after, in 1906, Savarkar was awarded a scholarship to study at India
House, a London hostel for Indian students headed by Shyamji Krishnavarma, who
encouraged his mentors to be vehemently anti-British. Tilak was the one who wrote
Krishnavarma a letter of recommendation. “Independence and Liberty, I regard as the very
pulse and breath of nation” Savarkar said in his grant application, foreshadowing the
exercises he would undertake in London over the next few years: “Independence and Liberty,
I regard as the very pulse and breath of nation.” From my childhood till now, dear sir, the loss
of my country’s independence and the possibility of recovering it has been the single issue on
which I have dreamed at night and pondered throughout the day”. At that time, all Savarkar
needed was the right setting and the right mentor to help his revolutionary approach flourish.
When the commemoration of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 in London was lauded as a
triumph of the British against the Indian rebels in 1907, Savarkar penned an extraordinarily
energetic poem titled “Oh Martyrs,” which hailed the Indian insurgents.
It’s worth noting that, while Savarkar is the most powerful figure in the room, although
he has been chastised for his anti-Muslim remarks, it is a mistake to assume that these views
are shared by all Muslims. Some of his beliefs may be derived from his own religious
convictions. Savarkar, He was an atheist according to most of the people who study him. At
the end of his life, he seemed to be more strongly in this position. After Savarkar’s wife died,
the author of the most popular biography of Savarkar, Dhananjay Keer, states that Savarkar
refused to execute the traditional burial ceremonies. He believed that grieving over a dead
person was pointless because “the world was changing.”
One of the more intriguing aspects of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s ideas is explored by
academic Ashis Nandy in his article “A Disowned Father of India’s Nationalism: Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar and the demonic and seductive in Indian nationalism.” “Even Savarkar’s
atheism was not the philosophical atheism associated with Buddhism and Vedanta, but the
anti-clerical, hard atheism of fin-de-siècle scientism, which became extremely popular
between many sections of the European working class and, through cultural osmosis, in parts
of modern India,” writes Nandy. Savarkar’s European education and time in London appear
to have had a significant effect in his development. That his atheism, as well as his choice of
English as his intellectual vehicle, may have influenced him As a result of his encounters
with the European worldview, he exhibits a fairly Savarkar’s character has an ironic, yet
significant, component. Despite the fact that he may have sensed Savarkar attributed a
considerable part of his success to his anti-British stance. Both his Western education and his
years of service have aided his intellectual and personal growth.
9.1.2 Political Career of Savarkar
V. D. Savarkar was a charismatic pioneer who played a pivotal role in India’s opportunity
war. In 1911, he was sent to the Andaman Islands for advanced exercises. Furthermore, in
1922, it was returned to India. From 1923 to 1937, he was confined to Ratnagiri town in this
manner. During this time, he went through a lot of hardships and did a lot of penances as a

104
result of the country’s opportunity. In Savarkar’s philosophical turn of events, there were two
stages. During the majority of his life, he was influenced by the Italian patriot Joseph
Mazzini’s philosophy and advocated the concept of integrative Indian patriotism, which was
distinct from the nationalism of Aurobindo and Tilak. During this time, religion played an
important role in his patriotism, although it did not exclude any rigid local area. However,
from 1922-23, Savarkar became an ally of Hindu nationalism in the second half of his career.
He joined the Hindu Mahasabha after being released from the ban in 1937, and served as its
President from 1938 until 1945.
9.2 Savarkar’s views on Society
V. D. Savarkar was a product of the Western Indian Renaissance, and his early thought was
influenced by Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, a realist scholar. The ideas of Herbert Spencer, J.
Bentham, and J.S. Mil had a great impact on Agarkar. Savarkar was not a strict man, and he
avoided all rigid practices throughout his life. He picked up three important ideas from
European philosophical tradition:
I) The standard of life combat determined the course of activity in nature and in every
human civilization since in this life conflict, the fittest made it and those who couldn’t
stand the war died.
II) Violence was inherent in nature’s creation, and nature despised absolute tranquillity.
However, as people progressed, barbarism and peace became intertwined. Henceforth,
in this difficult existence, man must develop the strength and power to conquer the
problems he faces.
III) There’s no such thing as an unequivocally ethical characteristic in the world. Elements
such as time, area, and item did not completely determine the ethical excellence or
perversion of a certain activity. Everything else being equal, the use was positive
because it was organised against slavery and the government.
It was moral relativism along these lines. Savarkar was a supporter of positivist
epistemology, and he saw instantaneous demonstration of the faculties as the most significant
source of information. He downplayed the sacredness of strict holy writings, claiming that all
severe sacred books were man-made and that their teachings could not be applied to all social
orders at all times. He ignored Shankara and Ramanuja’s profound ideas, as well as man’s
powerful quests. He believed that in order to advance the country, gain more power and
strength, and live a great and prosperous life, we should pursue these common goals. As a
result, we should make use of science and innovation. He advocated for the pursuit of science
and reason while condemning Hindus “silly and eccentric rituals.”
In this way, the rule of life conflict played an important role in Savarkar’s theory of
social change. For him, reason, science, and creativity were essential in bringing about
change in the general population.

105
9.3 Savarkar on Social Change
Savarkar was a strong supporter of social reform, urging Hindus to accept modern practices
based on science and reason and reject rigid conceptions and rituals that were impeding social
progress. Every single one of the stringent sacred scriptures was created by humans and was
subject to rational scrutiny. The Hindus became strange, pacifist, and unsuspecting as a result
of the scriptural power’s uncontrolled religiosity. This stifled their desire to learn more. They
were unconcerned about science and innovation. Savarkar was a position framework expert.
Both ‘Chaturvarna’ and the position structure, he claimed, were immensely detrimental to
Hindu society’s cohesiveness. The ‘Chaturvarna’ was assembled not according to any logical
paradigm, but rather according to sacred scriptures and long-held beliefs. It resulted in a cruel
act of inaccessibility. This led to systematised inequity, partitioned Hindu society into distinct
divisions, and sowed the seeds of Hindu enmity and derision. Hindus had cultivated a few
shackles that had kept them in chains, owing to the standards of virtue and defilement. .
In order to achieve monetary strength, Savarkar needed the Hindus to dismiss ignorant
religion in the Vedas and customs. They should respect the unrivalled quality of machines
and technology while also breaking all religious and customary obligations. Hindus have the
responsibility of removing all flaws in their society in order to emerge as a stable nation on
the earth. Social changes, realism, and science, according to Savarkar, were required for the
advancement of a Hindu society in order for it to gain the necessary strength. He claimed that
in today’s world, the country is recognised as a viable entity for individuals. The battle and
competition between various countries of the world over global governance concerns was
raging. The language of solidarity was detected in global governmental affairs. As a result,
Hindus should draw strength from the pursuit of science and innovation in order to protect
both their public interest and personal duty.
9.4 V.D. Savarkar’s Nationalism
9.4.1 Savarkar on Cultural Nationalism
Who is a Hindu, according to Hindutva is mainly a record of Hindu human beings as well as
an open proclamation of love for India. Savarkar attempts to decode Hindu texts and
distinguish Hindu humankind from other members of the Indian populace in it. “Hindutva is
not a term but a history,” he adds, and with that single statement, he gives the public a peek
of a fundamental, though ironic point. Savarkar got associated with the notion of history as a
teacher for both the present and future throughout his life. He was a firm believer in studying
history through the lens of previous events, particularly those involving revolutions and
revolutionaries. The ‘Indian War of Independence of 1857’, his first major work, produced a
totally new chronicle of a very contentious incident of Indian history. In this, Savarkar
contends that the insurrection of 1857 – which the British authorities classified as a “mutiny”
in order to minimise its political significance – was, in fact, the foremost step of the Indian
battle for independence.

106
 Though the phrase “Hindutva is not a word, but a history” may appear to support the
importance of such history, it does not. Savarkar appears to be implying that what matters
isn’t the truth of facts, but the notions that have grown and evolved over time within twenty
chapters of Hindutva which deal with history and etymology. These ideas, which he mentions
in passing throughout the dissertation, are mostly found in the form of holy Hindu literature ,
Hindu myths and legends. Savarkar refers to rivers throughout the book as the basis of Indian
territoriality, citing the ‘Sindhu’ river as that of the dividing line between Hindu India and
other parts of the continent. As Savarkar says, “the day the patriarchs of our race have
crossed that stream they cease to belong to those same people they had truly left behind and
lay the basis of a new nation...” He uses the information from the Bhavishya Purana, which is
another Hindu text, to back up this boundary line right away. In this essay, Savarkar mentions
a Royal Decree made with the help of King Shalivahan that established the Indus River as the
boundary between India and her neighbours. Through these sources, as well as some others
scattered throughout the rest of first section, Savarkar establishes that India’s borders are both
historical and sacrosanct, so those borders are inextricably linked to the advancement of
Hindu people.
As a result, the first “basics of Hindutva” is that people must have a link to India’s
geography, either by citizenship or genealogy, as well as a claim to the region as their
motherland. It is more than just what it takes being a Hindu in the following quote. Savarkar
is touching the heart of his dissertation by referring to the “cohesion, power, and sense of
oneness of a nation” This is a nationalist issue, one that openly asserts that the strongest
countries are made up of unified human beings who share a shared history and culture. It is
here that the most debatable aspects of the work emerge, and it will be helpful to remember
and deconstruct the writer’s actual assertions in order to comprehend what he is genuinely
saying - especially in light of the numerous and frequently too simplified critiques that have
appeared since Hindutva’s publication. As Savarkar points out, India has long had a large
Muslim and Christian population. These human beings may so satisfy one “crucial” but
nonetheless fall short in other ways, according to him, most notably in not having the same
spiritual commitment to India as Hindus. There is a reason why Hindutva needs to be based
on “common fairs and festivals, rituals and rites, ceremonies and sacraments” which is why
they need to make that their idea. One of the most important things about being a Hindu, as
per Savarkar, is that you only care about India. As a result, Muslims’ dual allegiance to India
and Mecca, in particular, is unacceptable. “Their affection is divided” Savarkar says, and this
kind of division is intolerable to someone as patriotic and committed to India as himself. It is
critical to note at this point that Savarkar’s Hindutva isn’t a blanket rejection of non-Hindus.
Though he has an issue with the presence of Muslims and Christians in a kingdom that, in his
perspective, should be entirely Hindu, he does allow outsiders to integrate. He says that many
former Hindus converted to Islam within centuries after the Muslim invasion of India.
Savarkar gives a message of open-armed welcome for those human beings:
“You, who are of the same race, have almost all the same values, and were forced out the of
our ancestral home by force – you only have to love our common mother wholeheartedly and
107
recognise her not only as our Fatherland (Pitribhumi) but also as our Holyland (punyabhu),
and you’ll be most welcome in the Hindu fold”
This comment reflects Savarkar’s strong feelings about non-Hindu organisations that
may have promoted or pushed Hindus away from Hinduism in the past. The remark, on the
other hand, shows that he isn’t hell-bent on ostracising all Muslims and turning them into a
loathed group in Indian culture. Savarkar is dedicated to preserving India’s Hindu religion
system, and anyone who threatens it is despised. Simultaneously, he proposes a means for
non-Hindus to escape total exclusion from the Hindutva system. To better comprehend
Savarkar’s psychology surrounding this issue, read his autobiographical essay, My
Transportation for Life. This book was written during Savarkar’s stint in the Cellular Jail on
the Andaman Islands in 1926, three years after he was released. It describes how he spent his
time in prison. Throughout the book, ‘My Transportation for Life’ highlights some of the
important moments in the growth of Savarkar’s perspective. The forced conversion of Hindus
to Islam is one of them. While imprisoned, Savarkar witnessed this and attempted to prevent
it. His strong indignation of those events indicates the basis of his anti-Muslim prejudice:
“After fourteen years in prison, I can confidently declare that perhaps a prison-mosque
converts more Hindus to Islam in a year than the Jamma Masjid in Delhi or Bombay.” The
sneaky and cruel technique of conversion practised inside this jailmasjid in India and the
Andamans is far more deadly than Hassan Nizami’s organised efforts to trap Hindu in the net
of Islam”
Even though there is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in Hindutva, there isn’t a lot of harsh
language. This is especially true for people who have been forced to convert from Hinduism.
Despite being widely thought of as Savarkar’s main place to spout anti-Muslim vitriol, it is
far less exclusive than it looks at first. Though the author’s claim that non-Hindus don’t
belong in the India he sees is true, it’s more important to point out that Savarkar is willing to
welcome both Christians and Muslims back into the Hindu fold. Readers and students who
think that Savarkar’s philosophy is all about rejecting and hating other people are wrong.
Hindutva is more than just spiritual issues. The way the work is put together doesn’t make it
very easy to understand, but when you look into it more, Hindutva reveals a lot about its
author. An act of devotion to “Mother India” and Hindu culture, which Savarkar thought was
losing steam in the face of British colonialism and the growing political and spiritual power
of Muslim groups. This is called a “labour of love.” By reading this book “Hindutva”, it is
much easier to show how powerful Savarkar’s mind was and how much he cared about his
cause, while also dispelling the idea that Hindutva is an attack on other religions.
9.4.2 Hindu Nationalism and the Indian State
Savarkar needs the Hindu nation to be strong and stable in order for India to survive as a free
and stable country in the midst of the world’s terrible life war. He claimed that in modern
times, the country was seen as the only viable political substance, and that all of the world’s
social orders were based on it. As a result, everyone had to consider his public arrangements

108
in relation to the country as a whole. There was nothing about it that was partisan or
parochial. Hindus, according to Savarkar, shaped the country as a whole. As a result, he put
pressure on the avoidance rule. He barred Muslims and Christians from entering India,
claiming that they did not believe India to be a Holy Land because their sacred sites were
located outside of the country. He then focused on the differences between Hindus and
Muslims. As a result, Hindus were always fighting non-Hindus in order to save their
community. As a result, he launched the Shuddhi movement, which aimed to return the
converted Hindus back to Hinduism while also purging the Marathi language of Arabic and
Persian terminology. The Muslims were not acclimated to life in India; in fact, they strove to
absorb Hinduism but failed miserably. The Hindus’ long-standing opposition to Muslim
aggression moulded them into a stable and unwavering nation.’ A great leader is a pragmatist,
knowing when to be practical and when to be theoretical. In 1939, he displayed this by
forming a coalition with Muslim League as well as other political groups in order to gain
power. Sindh, NWFP, and Bengal have all formed coalition governments. In order to liberate
the country and protect India and Hindus in the future, he began militarising Hindus. Veer
Savarkar was a prominent opponent of the Congress working committee’s decision to pass a
resolution in the Wardha session of 1942 ordering the British to “Quit India but retain your
forces here,” restoring British military power over India, which he considered would be far
worse. Because he saw that the British army’s position in India was essentially a lose-lose
situation, Savarkar opposed the action.
9.4.3 The Prison Years
Savarkar was taken by train from Maharashtra’s Thane Central Jail to Madras, where he
boarded a ship bound for the Cellular Jail in Port Blair, Andaman Islands, along with a group
of other offenders sentenced to deportation. It is evident that the ten years he spent in Port
Blair influenced Savarkar in a variety of ways. The Story of My Transportation for Life,
Savarkar’s autobiographical memoir, chronicles the weeks leading up to his incarceration, as
well as the rest of his time in the Andamans. My Transportation for Life, on the other hand,
did not appear till 1926, five years after Savarkar’s release from the Cellular Jail, but even
then, it was only serialised in the journal Kesari. The first booklet in the whole book format
of My Transportation for Life did not appear until 1930. Because of its location, as well as
the profound isolation and dehumanisation that hostages suffered behind its walls, Port
Blair’s Cellular Jail became reserved for inmates sentenced to the longest and harshest terms.
Following the 1857 Rebellion, the Cellular Jail received its first consignment of political
prisoners, who were widely viewed as posing the greatest risk of all by the authorities. When
Savarkar and the other convicts arrive in Port Blair for the first time, they are greeted by
David Barrie, the famous jail superintendent. Savarkar cites the following cautions from
Barrie:
“I would give you one more tip, and it is this: You will be involving yourself in a terrible
mess if you ever try to run away from this place. The prison is surrounded on all sides by
vast, dense, impenetrable jungles; the cruellest of aborigines make their abode in them; they

109
are cannibals. If they catch you, they kill you, and make a meal of tender, young bodies like
yours; as easily as we may eat cucumbers!”
The way jail personnel tried to control convicts and instil in them a sense of dread and
complete isolation is revealed in Savarkar’s depiction of Barrie’s caution. Prisoners were
almost certain to endure trauma and aloofness even before entering the penitentiary. “We
were Hindus, and a Hindu warder could have been generous towards us,” Savarkar explains,
“and a Hindu warder could have been liberal towards us.” As a result, the authorities imposed
Mussalman warders on us, who exaggeratedly reported our activities to them or made up
stories about us.” This is nearly same to that given by Barinder Ghosh in The Tale of my
Exile, but Savarkar writes further:
“…the Pathans, as a rule, were bigoted Mohamedans, and were especially notorious for their
fanatical hatred of the Hindus. The Officers had pampered them to serve their own ends. To
persecute the Hindus was natural to them… The Pathans, the Sindhis and the Baluchi
Muslims, with a few exceptions, were, one and all, cruel and unscrupulous persons, and were
full of fanatical hatred for the Hindus. Not so the Mussalmans from the Punjab, and less even
than they, those of Bengal, Tamil province and Maharashtra. But the fanatical section always
belittled and held up to laughter their co-religionists from other parts of India. It tweeted
them as ‘half kafirs’.”
Because British limits were obviously more forgiving than Indian rules in the mid-
twentieth century, Indian officials insisted on holding Savarkar’s hearing in his home
country. Insurgency was one of the main charges levelled against him, and it originated from
a distribution he wrote in Pune before leaving for London. As a result, the Indian government
had the option of pursuing him for his wrongdoings under the Fugitive Offenders Act of
1881, and despite his best efforts to escape it, Savarkar was taken to Bombay for his
preliminary examination in July of 1910. From 1910 to 1911, he was subjected to two
preliminary hearings in India, which resulted in his conviction and sentence of two life terms
in the Andaman Islands’ Cellular Jail.
For a variety of reasons, Savarkar’s incarceration and subsequent conviction are well-
known. He was the very first Indian person to be convicted to two separate life sentences,
which he unsuccessfully battled to overturn by claiming he only had one life to offer.
Furthermore, the seriousness of the subversion charge brought against him should not be
understated. The main reason the British government had the choice of returning Savarkar to
India was because of this allegation; nevertheless, the public authority’s concern about
Savarkar’s writings was addressed more. Despite the fact that he was almost definitely
engaged in the death of Curzon Wyllie in London, Savarkar was never linked to Dhingra’s
operation by the police. It’s difficult to determine if this omission was due to an oversight or
a wish to wrap up the case with Dhingra’s conviction alone, but it’s vital that Savarkar not be
imprisoned for his role in the crime. In actuality, despite his adamant conviction in utilising
hard techniques if more peaceful ones failed, Savarkar never used violence himself. As a
result, the way he employed words was the source of his danger. Through his lectures and,

110
more crucially, his writings, which were ruthlessly pirated into and throughout India,
Savarkar, an eloquent speaker and persuasive author, constituted the biggest threat to the
Indian government.
9.5 Critical Analysis
Savarkar was the very first Indian thinker to declare that Hindus in India had constituted their
own nation. He stood for a powerful Hindu nation that could withstand and survive the
world’s violent life fight. Throughout his life, he worked with the Hindu Mahasabha to
spread Hindu nationalism. In V. D. Savarkar’s Hindu nationalism, there are evident
contradictions and logical problems. Even in the religious arena, Hindus, Muslims, and
Christians shared common traditions and sympathies in India, thus he couldn’t effectively
define nationality. His support for reason, science, and technology was crucial in the sense
that they aided him in the formation of a strong Hindu nation. The evolution of social
philosophy in the West culminated in the growth of reason and science, which opposed
religious prejudices and superstitions. The same could not be utilised to bolster religious
nationalism’s argument. The use of the words’ reason’ was awful from that perspective, for
rationally speaking, no community could be excluded from the definition of the nation on the
basis of loyalty and patriotism, because betrayers of the national interest may emerge from
any community. Furthermore, his difference between the country and the state was
unconvincing because the two (nation and state) could not be separated and eventually
merged to form a nation-state. Non-Hindus were granted all citizenship privileges except
membership in the nation. This would undoubtedly cause divisions among individuals and
undermine national unity. A sizable segment of the population would feel excluded from the
national mainstream through no fault of their own. Because reason, science, and relativist
ethics did not recognise ascriptive allegiance, Savarkar’s endorsement of relativist ethics did
not reconcile these problems. They had to be applied universally to all human beings.
9.6 Summary
V. D. Savarkar’s Hindu patriot thoughts have been considered in this chapter. He presented a
new political translation of Hinduism in the Renaissance. It was claimed in V. D. Savarkar’s
Hindu patriotism that those who thought of India as their motherland and blessed nation were
Hindus. Savarkar campaigned for all amicable changes and the abolition of the caste system
in order to strengthen the Hindu country. In Veer Savarkar’s philosophy there are a lot of
different things, like ethical, theological and philosophical theories. This is actually what his
political philosophy is. It is a mix of humanists and rationalists as well as universalists,
positivists, utilitarians and realists. He also campaigned to remove social injustices in India,
such as caste prejudice and untouchability. His novels inspired young people, and his brave
behaviour gained him the nickname ‘Veer,’ and he became renowned as Veer Savarkar.He
advocated for a novel approach to social transformation that relied on the use of science,
logic, and creativity. He distinguished between the nation and the state. Throughout his life,
Veer Savarkar has faced a variety of challenges, including imprisonment on the Andaman

111
and Nicobar Islands and extradition from the United Kingdom. He, on the other hand, took
everything in stride and demonstrated extreme patience. Visionaries are great leaders. They
have the ability to look into the future in ways that no one else can. Veer Savarkar was
elected to the Hindu Mahasabha as a result of his imaginative zeal. Even though the term
Hinduness (or Hindutva) was controversial at the time, he popularised it. The goal of this
initiative was to instil in Hindus a sense of India-based identity (Bharat). His Hindutva was
devoid of caste discrimination as well as other non-Hindu practises that were incompatible
with Hinduism. His goal of a united Hinduism is inspiring.
9.7 Practice Questions
1. Examine Savarkar’s ideas on Hindu nationalism.
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
…………………………………………….………………………………………………
…………………………….………………………………………………………………
2. Discuss the role of social reforms in strengthening the Hindu nation?
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
…………………………………………….………………………………………………
…………………………….………………………………………………………………
3. What, according to Savarkar, are the features of social change?
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
…………………………………………….………………………………………………
…………………………….………………………………………………………………
4. Comprehensively analyse the various aspects of Savarkar’s thought.
…………………………………………………………………………….………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
…………………………………………….………………………………………………
…………………………….………………………………………………………………

9.8 References
Bakhle, Janaki. “Country First? Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) and the Writing
of Essentials of Hindutva.” Public Culture 22, no. 1 (2010): 149-86.
— “Savarkar (1883-1966), Sedition and Surveillance: The Rule of Law in a Colonial
Situation.” Social History 35, no. 1 (2010): 51-75
Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1993.

112
Chaturvedi, Vinayak. “Rethinking Knowledge with Action: V.D. Savarkar, the Bhagavad
Gita, and Histories of Warfare.” Modern Intellectual History 7, no. 2 (2010): 417-35.
Golwalkar, M.S. We or Our Nationhood Defined. 3rd ed. Nagpur: Bharat Prakashan,
1945.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1996.
Savarkar, V.D. “Hindu-Pad-Padashahi.” In Selected Works of Veer Savarkar Delhi:
Abhishek Publications, 2007.
–.Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? 5th ed. Bombay: S.S. Savarkar, 1969. 1923
–The Indian War of Independence of 1857 London 1909.
– “My Transportation for Life” In Selected Works of Veer Savarkar Delhi: Abhishek
Publications, 2007.

113
 Unit-10

Nehru: Secularism
Dr. Deepika
10. Structure
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Learning Objectives
10.3 Nehru’s Conception of Secularism
10.4 Aspects of secularism
10.5 Secularism and Religion
10.6 Nehru’s views on Communalism
10.7 Summary
10.8 Practice Questions
10.9 Essential Readings

10.1 Introduction
Jawaharlal Nehru is often attributed to be one of the architects of modern India. His
remarkable personality was an unusual combination of an intellectual and a practical political
leader. He was one of the few nationalist leaders who remained critical both in the long
struggle for national freedom and its aftermath.
He belonged to that group of Western-educated Indians elites who basically drew their
inspiration from the intellectuals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. At the initial of his
career, he had absorbed many of the ideas and impulses of modern liberal democratic thought
as represented by Locke, Bentham and Mill, and in later years, he received a deeper
appreciation of Indian history and philosophy and enhanced the basis for subsequent thought
and action.16
Nehru had a long span of public life stretching for more than forty-five years. After his
education at Harrow and Cambridge, he came back to India in 1912 when the national
political situation was at a low profile. He was not influenced by the policies of the moderate
group within the congress although his father, Motilal Nehru, was an avid supporter of it. He
believed in a more aggressive attitude towards foreign rule and strongly emphasized on
having individual and national self-respect. He was a staunch nationalist and opposed
authoritarianism. His demand for a more fighting attitude towards foreign domination was a
purely psychological urge and he continued to express it even after Gandhi’s emergence on
the political scene. Nonetheless, his intervention, both during the freedom struggle and later

16
Michael Brecher, Nehru- A Political Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p-181.

114
as the greatest political leader of free India, was creative enough to chart a course of action
that was refreshing and relevant.
10.2 Learning Objectives
After reading this unit you should be able to:
 Explore idea of Secularism
 Assess the notion and feasibility of Nehru’s views on Secularism.
 Understand general aspects of secularism that have been produced by Nehru from
varied social and temporal contexts.
 Illustrate the uniqueness of Nehru’s understanding of the concept of religion with
relation to communalism.
 Explain the main features of Indian Secularism

10.3 Nehru’s Conception of Secularism

Alongside Democracy, Federalism, and Socialism, Secularism was one of the foundational
principles on which the leaders of the new state of independent India set out in the middle of
the twentieth century to create an economically developed and socially just society.
It was mainly due to Jawaharlal Nehru’s efforts that India emerged as a secular state. He
was the chief exponent as well as the promoter of this concept in India. Much before the
Independence, he played a heroic role in the development of a secular basis for Indian polity.
For him, Secularism was quintessential in promoting national unity and progress. He
highlighted before the masses the evils of mixing religion and politics.
Nehru’s secularism officially came at the national scene for the first time in the
resolution drafted by him on ‘Fundamental Rights and Duties’ which was adopted by the
Karachi Congress in 1931. Clause (1) (ix) of the resolution read: ‘The state shall observe
neutrality or impartiality in regard to all religions.17 A secular state did not in any sense
suggest that religion ceases to be an important part of an individual’s life. It only meant the
dissociation of the state from religion is a fundamental principle of modern democracy.
Furthermore, Secularism may then be seen not as intrinsically opposed to religion but as
advocating critical respect towards it.
It may be noted that the ‘Objectives Resolution’, which was the foundation for the
Constitution of India, was formulated by him. Nehru, while moving the Objectives
Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, insisted that the future constitution must not only be
built on this line but also must be definite and clear regarding its aims and objectives.
Explaining this further, he said, “it has even been and shall always be our ardent desire to see
the people of India united together so that we may frame a Constitution which will be

17
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India (London: Lindsay- Drummond 1948, third impression), p-406.

115
acceptable to the masses of the Indian people”. The unity of India and the question of
providing social justice without sacrificing individual freedom of Indian people were
certainly uppermost in his mind. He did not want the people of India to think in terms of
religions and castes. He was afraid of communalism and its disruptive tendencies. It is
commonly argued that among the eight points, which Nehru stressed in his Objectives
Resolution, the fifth one emphasised the secular nature of the constitution. The relevant
portion of the Objectives Resolution is as follows:
“Wherefore shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India, Justice, social,
economic and political; equality of status before the law; freedom of thought, expression,
belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality”.18
These points in the Objectives Resolution are not only embodied in the various articles
of the Constitution of India but also are written in the preamble itself. Initially Secularism did
not find direct mention in the constitution despite the efforts of many members to have it
written into it. Dr. B.R Ambedkar, the Chairman of the drafting committee, considered it
unwise to constitutionally bind the future generations to a socio-economic agenda that may
have to be changed with the passage of time.19
Nehru explained his notion of secularism clearly on various occasions. In 1948, when he
addressed the students at Aligarh Muslim University, he explained that India would be
leading towards a secular state, mainly because it had to cope with modern thinking and a
theocratic state which regarded people of other faiths as extraneous, would be beyond the
culture of India.
A theocratic state is one where a priestly order directly administers the state by reference
to what it believes are divine laws. In such states, religious and political orders are identical.
There is an official alliance between the states and religion. Furthermore, the state is
subordinate to religious ends even though it has its own functions, power structure and
internal norms. In such states religion is granted formal and legal recognition. Generally,
Nehru was vehemently opposed to this idea. In his view, Theocratic state was both medieval
and anti-democratic in character. Nehru was confident that India shall proceed on secular and
national lines while moving towards the modern trends of internationalism. He further
believed that India will be a land, as in the past, of many faiths equally honoured and
respected. While spelling out the implications of secularism, he clarified that it did not mean
a state where religion is ignored, rather it means providing freedom of religion and
conscience, including freedom for those who may choose to follow no religion. He was
apprehensive that some people may think that the word ‘secular’ mean something against to
religion, but that of course is not correct.

18
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. I, P.55.
19
Madan, T.N.2006, Images of the world: Essays on religion, Secularism and Culture, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p- 84-85,106.

116
 Indian secularism has come to have both a focused meaning and also a wider
connotation. In a letter to the Chief Ministers in 1952, Nehru observed that the word ‘secular’
meant more than the ‘free play of religions’: it also conveyed ‘the idea of the unity of India
and of the social and political equality of people to whatever group, religion or province they
might belong’. Thus, he did not consider ‘a caste ridden society properly secular’.20
Again, in one of his speeches on 2nd October event, while condemning the communal
outlook of certain sections in India, he expressed his idea that secular state was nothing but
the opposite of communalism and India would be heading towards the secular state. He said
“We will not tolerate any communalism in this country and……… we are building a free,
secular state, where every religion and belief has full freedom and equal honour.” Believing
that there should not be any discrimination in the treatment of various religions, and all must
be honoured equally, Nehru maintained that “We have laid down in our constitution that
India is a secular state. It means equal respect for all religion and equal opportunities in
political, economic and other aspects for those who profess any faith.”21
Nehru emphasized on a strong secular base for the continuance of social stability and
religious harmony among diverse groups. He firmly believed that only a secular state could
better serve a community divided by diverse religious creeds and faiths. With the state
pledged to a secular way of life, the Constitution of India possess all the features of a secular
state for the sake of extensive religious liberty. Article- 25, 27 and 28 guarantee religious
liberty to all the citizens. Under Article 25(1), ‘all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and have the freely right to profess, practice and propagate religion’.
While Article 27 rules out the public funding of religion. Under Article27, ‘no person is
compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment
of expenses for the promotion of any particular religion.’ Whereas Article 28(1) specify that
‘no religious instruction is to be provided in any educational institution completely
maintained out of state funds’.
Article28(3) mentioned, ‘no person attending any educational institution…. shall be
required to take part in any religious instruction or worship that may be conducted in such
institution’. Article 29(2) declares that no citizen shall be refused to take admission into any
educational institution maintained by the state on grounds only of religion.
Equality of citizenship is guaranteed under Article 14, 15(1) and 29(2) of the Indian
constitution. Article 15(1) states that the state shall not discriminate any citizen on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth etc. Article 16(1) and (2) of Indian constitution
affirm an equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointed of
any office under the state. It further affirms that no citizen, on grounds of religion or race be
eligible for or discriminate against in respect of any employment or office under the state.

20
Austin, Granville,1999, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p- 557-58.
21
Nehru, J. Speeches, Vol. IV, P. 11.

117
The clause on universal franchise (Article 326) as well as Article 325 that declares a general
electoral roll for all constituencies and state that no one shall be ineligible for inclusion in this
roll or claim to be included in it on grounds only of religion, etc. embody the value of equal
active citizenship.
Nehru was also interested in the enumeration of the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’
which suggested the creation of a uniform civil code for all in India irrespective of the
differences of caste or religion by introducing various measures of social legislation. In his
view, a secular society was fundamental to maintain national unity and to ensure orderly
progress.
Basically, for him, the presence of separate civil laws governing different religious
communities was inconsistent with the idea of a secular society. He professed that stability of
our nation depended on how well we are able to segregate our secular polity from
communalism and extremist revivalism. Nehru’s achievement in this direction was most
praiseworthy and was acclaimed by even his critics.
10.4 Aspects of Secularism
Generally, for Nehru, the concept of the Secularism that emerged in India thus carried three
meanings:
(a) Freedom of religion for all,
(b) The state shall treat all faiths fairly or give equal opportunity to all religious groups by
certify that any religion is not favoured at the cost of other.22 and
(c) The state shall not be associated with any one faith or religion which by that act
becomes the state religion. 23
Broadly speaking his idea of secularism was quite comprehensive and different from the
Western meaning which is the separation of religion and the State. For him the Indian version
is associated with ‘’tolerance of all religions‟ and has facilitated to secure special treatment to
marginalised minority communities, in view with their backwardness, historically.24
Nehru had tremendous respect for the freedom of man. He firmly believed that the
creative and adventurous spirit of man could grow only in an atmosphere of rights and
freedom. Moreover, to promote and preserve the human values, both society and the
individual must enjoy freedom. And as per him, good of the individual could be realized only
in a democratic society.
Throughout his life, he stressed the importance of liberal democracy and passionately
desired that free India went along the full democratic process. His concept of democracy

22
Smith, D.E (1958), Nehru and Democracy: The Political Thought of an Asian Democrat, Calcutta: Orient
Longman. P-154.
23
S. Gopal, 1980, Jawaharlal Nehru: An Anthology, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, p 327
24
Roy, Himanshu and Singh, M.P. (2017). Indian Political Thought: Themes and Thinkers, Delhi: Pearson
publication.

118
broadly emphasized equality of opportunity for all in the political and economic field and
freedom for the individual to grow and develop to the best of his personality. It also involved
a high degree of tolerance of others and a certain inquisitive search for the truth. It offers
society something of the highest human values. It transforms the discipline which is imposed
by the authority into self-discipline. Democracy was thus the dynamic concept for Nehru.
Explaining the reasons for accepting the democratic process in India, Nehru observed:
“It is not enough for us merely to produce the material goods of the world. We do want a high
standard of living, but not at the cost of man’s creative spirit, his creative energy, his spirit of
adventure, not at the cost of all fine things of life which have ennobled man throughout the
ages. Democracy is not merely a question of elections”.25
In Nehru’s democratic thought, there was an integrated conception of political economic
and social freedom which could not be separated from one another. Nehru pointed out that
democracy could grow and flourish only in an equal society. A serious weakness of Western
democracy, according to him, was that political power there became the monopoly of the
dominant class. Realizing that the danger to democracy lay essentially in the economic
structure of society. The democratic machinery was often exploited to perpetuate class
privileges and interests. However, he was very clear about his social objective of establishing
an economic democracy, which in his terminology, was to be a socialistic pattern of society.
Such a society was to be based on cooperative efforts providing equal opportunity for all.
One of the reasons for Nehru’s fascination for democracy over authoritarianism was that
the former was based on rationalism while the latter relied on dogmatism. Free discussion
and an inquisitive search for the truth, which found no place in authoritarianism, constituted
the essence of democratic theory.
10.5 Secularism and Religion
Nehru’s secularism was not directed against the internal content of religion, it was meant that
the positive and beneficial function of religion was clearly recognised by him. This shows
that his secularism does not embark on a meaningless attack on religion as such, but on the
other hand, criticises the purposeless and outmoded external manifestations of religion.
He condemned religion because it covered and regulated every aspect of the individual’s
life and sustained a moral basis in society. He pointed out that as a result of religion’s
stringent hold on the individual’s life, innumerable ways of religious rituals were born. These
rituals in turn bred superstition in society which resulted in technical backwardness and
unscientific outlook.
Indian society was bound by tradition, orthodoxy and communalism and was stagnating
in technical backwardness. Traditionalism and orthodoxy resisted the inflow of modern
scientific and technological forces and opposed any change in the texture of the society. The

25
Jawaharlal Nehru, ‘Away from Acquisitive Society’, in Nehru’s Speeches (March 1953- August 1957, Vol.3
(Delhi: Publications Division, Govt. of India, 1958) p-53.

119
force of communalism in the name of religion, opposed, if not retarded the freedom of
movement and led to all sorts of confusion in society. These are the factors which generally
influenced Nehru’s vision on religion. And as a result, Nehru was, from the very beginning,
quite hostile, unsympathetic and intolerant in his comments on religion.
Nehru’s general grouse against religion is that it prevents the penetration of science and
its methods into the society, which he has revealed through his writings and speeches. He has
no patience with the crude interpretation of religion and a dogmatic approach towards it
which formed the seedbed of all superstition, bigotry and intolerance, besides perpetually
blinding the innocent peoples by the age-old condition of ignorance and fear. A true religion
on the other hand never encourages superstition. On the contrary, if there were no scientific
religious inquiry on strictly rational grounds, only superstitions will grow.
According to him, “Religions have discouraged man from trying to understand not only the
unknown but, what might come in the way of social effort, instead of encouraging curiosity
and thoughts, they have preached a philosophy of sub mission to nature to establish religious
institutions, to the prevailing social order and everything that is.”26
In this scene Nehru believed that the progress of man or nation could be achieved by
having a scientific temperament and by adopting scientific methods, tools and techniques. He
rejected complete absence of religious belief as he believed that religion is the basis of many
values that humans hold but laments the growth of science in society. Nehru further states,
“Religion, though it has undoubtedly brought comfort to innumerable human beings and
stabilised society by its values, that has examined the tendency to change and progress
inherent in human society.”27
Here he rightly said, “It is science only that can solve the problems of disease, hunger,
poverty and illiteracy of huge resources flowing to waste of rich country inhabited by a
starving people”.28
Religion, in the narrow sense in which it is understood, is usually conformity to and
compliance with a certain creed and an established religious order.
10.6 Nehru’s views on Communalism
When religious forces get active in politics, they become communal. Nehru mentioned,
Communalism is only another name for groupism dividing mankind on some primitive
notions and faiths.
He was opposed to communalism, and was aware of its danger to the integrity of the
nation. Discussing on communalism, he once said: “In its essence it is a throwback to

26
Nehru, J. The discovery of India, Bombay, 1960, p.524.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.

120
medieval state of mind, medieval habits and medieval slogans………thus not go back to
something that has no importance to the modern world.”29
According to him, a communal clash is due to religious intolerance: “One religious man says
this, and another says that. And often enough, each one of them considers the other a fool or
a knave. Who is right?... But it seems rather presumptuous for both of them to talk with
certainty of such matters and to break each other’s heads over them. Most of us are narrow-
minded.”30
He further said that “We must have it clearly in our minds and in the mind of the country
that the alliances of religion and politics in the shape of communalism is a most dangerous
alliance.”31 He believed that Communalism is the biggest impediment to the unity of India, as
it would destroy the moral fabric of our society. This unity could be preserved only by the
spread of scientific knowledge and the recognition of the objectivity of what science
intimates to us by an open and natural inquiry into the nature of things.
Nehru agreed with Dr Ambedkar, who said that is democracy meaningless in the face of
uncontrolled communalism and hence only a secular state based on equality, justice and
fraternity could provide a flourishing democratic base to Indian society. Hence, he says, “In
India, the first essential is the maintenance of the unity of the country...... a unity of the mind
and heart, which precludes narrow urges that make for disunity, and which breaks down the
barriers raised in the name of religion.”32
Thinking of Jawaharlal Nehru came closest to the Western conception of secularism as
agnosticism and rationalism.33 Again, Nehru was not blind to the cause that communal clash
is due to economic reasons also, as he traced various communal events in the provinces
during the pre-Independence period. Comprehensively, he was more concerned with
exposing the economic foundation of Muslim separation and the negative ideology of
communalism than with the elaboration of a positive ideology of secularism.
He professed that Secularism is more than a political doctrine, but also a social one, as it
has a revolutionary character which is inclusive of all religions and communities in India.
The most outstanding feature of Nehru’s Secularism was allowing equal status to all religious
groups. Every individual shall have freedom to practise, profess or propagate any religion
while no one shall be deprived of his legitimate rights on the basis of religion that he wishes
to follow. Importantly so, Nehru’s concept of secularism has four main features.
a) First, in a modern pluralistic society, the personal faith and conduct is an individual’s
choice and therefore must be respected.

29
Nehru, J. Speeches, Vol. II, P. 126.
30
Nehru, J. Glimpses of world history, p-3.
31
Nehru, J. Speeches, Vol. I, P. 73.
32
Ibid.
33
Madan, T.N.2006, Images of the world: Essays on religion, Secularism and Culture, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, ch-3 and 4.

121
 b) Second, the state shall refrain from favouring any particular religion or faith and shall
follow a policy of neutrality in all religious matters.
c) Third, in Nehru’s secular state, it also professes a secular philosophy which means
having a definite mental attitude in various communities. This attitude is paramount in
bringing harmony and a feeling of fraternity towards other communities.
d) Fourth, Nehru professed secularisation in all aspects of social life. He wanted to
counter communalism with social welfare legislations while remaining religiously
neutral.
According to Nehru, a secular state was a fundamental necessity in India, as our nation
sought a solution to the problem of harmonious coexistence of huge religious diversity in the
country, which was a challenge to Indian unity, harmony and social stability. He also has
cautioned that it does not mean complete absence of religion from the individual’s sphere, but
putting religion on a separate pedestal away from the political and social scene prevalent in
the country. Furthermore, Secularism is not just the confrontation between religion and the
state. It requires new initiatives by the state and by the citizens in relation to the essentials of
a secularized society.
10.7 Summary
There are two different, and also interlinked, phases in the evolution of Nehru’s political
ideas. The first is the nationalist phase in which Nehru sought to introduce socialistic ideas in
opposition to Gandhi and his followers within Congress, despite following the Mahatma for
practical purposes. The second phase began when Nehru took over power in independent
India after the British withdrawal. He ‘consolidated a nation, trained it for democracy,
constructed a model for economic development and set the country on the path to growth’.34
From the above, it is clear that Jawaharlal Nehru, was an unique statesman, with an
instinct for secularism. As an intellectual he could think far ahead of his surroundings, and
his idea did influence the progressive forces inside and outside the country. He defined
Secularism as a code of social ethics that challenges the acceptance of inequalities where
these are proposed by religious ideologies. A secular state according to him has nothing to do
with religion, it neither accepts nor rejects religion but leaves it to the individual conscience.
Here the object of this state is not negative but a positive one.
On the whole, Nehru’s concept of secularism was carefully conceptualized taking into
consideration various Indian tradition and adapting to its realities. He was opposed to
superstition, communalism and religious fanaticism and wanted his countrymen to be rational
and secular. Human dignity and individual freedom were some of the values that he
cherished. His ideas have certainly shaped the way we think and practise democracy today.
He aspired to build a political order based upon the universal values of freedom and social
justice.

34
Gopal, S.1989. Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p-473.

122
In today’s neo-liberal context where politics is reduced to confrontation, the Nehruvian
approach seems to be a persuasive alternative seeking to evolve views and ideas which are
not only meaningful but also relevant to a divided world.
10.8 Practice Questions
1. Describe the Nehru’s idea of secularism?
2. Do you feel that Indians developed a model of Secularism that was not an imitation of
the western conceptions?
3. Evaluate the role and contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru as a pragmatic thinker in
India.
4. Assess the ideas of Nehru as a true secularist.
5. What are the major aspects of Nehru’s secularism?
6. Briefly explain the Nehru’s views on Religion.
7. Write an essay on the Nehruvian inputs on communalism in the country.
10.9 Essential Readings
Austin, Granville. (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chandhoke, Neera. (1999). Beyond Secularism: The Rights of Religious Minorities. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Bhargava, Rajeev. (ed.). (1998). Secularism and its critics. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Madan, T. N. (2006). Images of the World: Essays on Religion, Secularism, and Culture.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pantham, Thomas. & Deutsch, L Kenneth. (1986). Political Thought in Modern India. Delhi:
Sage publication.
Singh, Aakash. & Mohapatra Silika. (2012). Indian Political Theory: A reader. New York:
Routledge.
Srinivasan, T.N. (ed.). (2007). The Future of Secularism. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Judith. (2004). Nehru: A Political Life. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gopal, S. (1972-82). Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. Volume IX. New Delhi: Orient
Longman.
Gopal, S. (1989). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1941). An Autobiography: With Musings on Recent Events in India.
London: The Bodley Head Ltd.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1989). The Discovery of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

123
Chakrabarty, Bidyut. & Pandey, Rajendra. K. (2020). Modern Indian Political Thought. New
Delhi: Sage India Publications.
B. Zachariah. (2004). Nehru. London: Routledge Historical Biographies.
Chatterjee, P. (1986). ‘The Moment of Arrival: Nehru and the Passive Revolution’, in
Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? London: Zed Books.

124
 Unit-11

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia

Dr. Nishant Yadav

11. Structure
11.1 Preface
11.2 Idea of Democratic Socialism
11.3 Concept of Chaukhamba State
11.4 The Concept of Sapta Kranti
11.5 Lohia’s thoughts on Indian culture
11.6 Lohia’s thoughts on mother tongue
11.7 Lohia’s concept of social justice
11.8 Lohia’s policy of reservation for the backward
11.9 Lohia’s Party Socialism: The Politics of Non-Congressism
11.10 Conclusion
11.11 Practice Questions
11.12 Bibliography

11.1 Preface
Ram Manohar Lohia is known as a leading leader of the socialist movement of India, a hero
of the freedom movement and an intellectual politician of rebellious tendencies. He was
influenced by both Marxism and Gandhism on the idea of social justice, but without blindly
following both the ideologies, he adopted socialism and gave birth to a new concept of
democratic socialism suited to Indian society, different from the idea of socialism prevalent
in the West. Lohia understood Marxism and Gandhism at its core and found both to be
incomplete, as the pace of history has abandoned both. The importance of both is only epoch-
making.To Lohia, Marx is a symbol of the West and Gandhi to the East and Lohia wanted to
end the separation of West-East. From the point of view of humanity, he wanted to end the
distinction between East-West, white-black, rich-poor, developed-underdeveloped nation,
and male- female.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, a strong opponent of Congress, tried successfully to end the
supremacy of Congress. He had a deep understanding of Indian culture and society. He
considered Ram and Ramayana to be essential for the sophistication and culture of Indian
society. Lohia has also written articles on Ram, Shiva and Savitri. He was as passionate about
the river Ganges as he was about the decline in politics. Lohia was deeply disturbed by the
social inequality prevailing in India and that is why he used to teach youth wherever he went

125
to fight against injustice, inequality, superstition, and narrow-mindedness. In his concept of
Saptakranti, there were ideas like break caste, remove English, bind prices, male-female
equality, world-government, Indo-Pak unity. He believed in Gandhi’s non-violence and civil
disobedience. The present chapter analyzes the above ideas of Lohia in detail.
11.2 Idea of Democratic Socialism
Lohia believed in the democratic system, but his democracy is associated with socialism.
According to him democracy is the means to achieve the objective of socialism. He was in
favor of decentralization of power to take democracy to the common people. A democratic
system is a representative system, in which the public is both the ruler and also the ruled.
Lohia believed both capitalism and communism are inappropriate ideologies in the Asian
context. His democratic socialism is a goal of achieving the economic goals of Marxism i.e.,
economic decentralization through Gandhian measures i.e., political decentralization.
Lohia raised two questions on traditional democracy–
1. Is the common man really sovereign? And
2. Is the common man so independent and intellectually mature that he is able to exercise
his right to vote?
In this regard, Lohia is of the view that modern democracy is working under the
capitalist system. Although the representative system is a responsible system, but the army,
police, judiciary, and educational institutions are run by the capitalist class. Publishers of
newspapers and periodicals are also industrialists. Therefore, in such a society neither the
citizen is free nor he is able to use his intelligence properly. According to Lohia, if
democracy is to be made a real democracy, then it is possible only through the goal of
socialism. According to Lohia, democratic socialism is basically the principle of equality, so
democratic society should be based on equality. The meaning of equality is to organize the
social forces in such a way that every person in the society can get his due rights. Lohia has
called this the principle of urgency. Lohia has described many types of equality as necessary,
such as gender equality, ending inequalities based on apartheid, ending birth and caste
inequalities, ending economic inequalities by increasing production, etc. Lohia, in his book
“Marx, Gandhi and Socialism” has advocated equitable distribution of material resources and
equitable development of the virtue of fraternity, emphasizing the need to embrace the
principle of equality as a whole. He calls it physical and spiritual equality.
11.3 Concept of Chaukhamba State
Lohia was of the opinion that the democracy prevalent in the western world is unable to solve
the problems of India and establish socialism. True democracy demands people’s
participation in political processes and for this wide decentralization is necessary. Lohia has
suggested the establishment of a decentralized system based on the principle of
“Chaukhamba State” in place of parliamentary democracy. In his book ‘Vishva Manas ki
Jhalkiyan’, he laid down the administrative structure of the state on four pillars:–
1. Village

126
 2. District
3. Province
4. Center
Based on these categorizations of administrative structures,he believed, the real goal of
democracy is also to establish socialism.
11.4 Concept of Sapta Kranti
Lohia is the father of many theories, programs and revolutions. They were in favor of
fighting together against all injustices. In Lohia’s concept of social justice, his theory of Sapta
Kranti has a very important role. In this principle he called for seven revolutions
simultaneously. Those seven revolutions are as follows:
1. For male-female equality
According to Lohia, the redressal of inequalities between men and women will be possible
only when women are given more opportunities for development in the society. While
Gandhi’s goal was to establish ‘Ramrajya’, Lohia wanted to establish ‘Sitaramrajya’. Lohia’s
intense social thought emphasized equality of all kinds. Lohia believed that equality means
equality not by any other options, he believed that if harmony is to be created in the society,
there should be talk of equality everywhere.
That’s why he said, “Equal pay should be given for equal work”. There was a woman
Prime Minister and a woman should get less salary even after doing the same work as a man,
there can be no more condemnation than this. Apart from this, it should also be remembered
that in a state led by women, there should be little compassion and less rigidity. It should not
happen that the hardness keeps on increasing. He was of the view that the cause of gender
inequality in any human society is not natural but social, which does not meet the test of logic
and intelligence in any way. Therefore, such irrational inequality should be rejected which
deprives half of the population of their normal human rights. He believed that a human
society in which inequality is prevalent between men and women, that society can never
achieve its full democratic development.
2. Against political, economic and mental inequality based on the color of the skin
To eradicate discrimination based on color in India, Lohia advocated mental revolution, for
which he called for revolution against white supremacy in India.
3. Against the cultured, innate caste system and for the special occasion to the
backward
Casteism and Reservation Lohia opposed casteism and gave the slogan ‘Todo caste.
Throwing light on the terrible form of casteism, he said that in India the transformation of
classes into castes and castes into classes has become ubiquitous. Karl Marx tried to eliminate
economic classes, but he did not pay attention to the fact that these classes transform
themselves into castes. Lohia, in his book ‘Itihasa-Chakra’, while discussing the movement
127
of history through dialectical method, has said that history progresses through the mutual
interchange of castes and classes. He was of the opinion that there is a need to break both
caste and class together in India. Socialism cannot be brought in India without destroying the
caste system. Lohia demanded 60 percent reservation for Dalits, women, backward class
minorities and tribals in the army, administration, parliament and legislatures. In relation to
giving jobs to these classes, he favors ‘first ability, then opportunity’ instead of ‘first
opportunity, then ability’.
4. Against Foreign Slavery and for Freedom and World Public-Raj
Lohia’s thought-current was never bound by the political boundaries of the country and time.
He had a unique and unique vision about the creation and development of the world. That’s
why he had always dreamed of world-citizenship. He considered human beings not only of
any country but of the world. His wish was that there should be no legal impediment for
moving from one country to another and that anyone should be completely free to move
anywhere, taking any part of the whole earth as his own. Lohia was the seer and builder of a
new civilization and culture. But while the modern era could not ignore his philosophy, it
could not assimilate him completely either. Due to his brilliance, vigor, originality,
expansiveness and wide-ranging qualities, he remained out of the grasp of the people in most
of the people. There is a reason for this – for those who want to take the ideas of Lohia
superficially, Lohia is too heavy for them. It is only with a deep vision that the thread within
Lohia’s thoughts, statements and deeds can be caught, which is the specialty of Lohia-idea,
the same formula is his method of thought.
5. Against inequalities of private capital and for economic equality and to increase
production by planning
Lohia is in favor of economic decentralization. In this regard, he has favored social
ownership and control over the means of production. Like Gandhi, he supports small
machines and small industries, because he considers big industries as the reason for the
centralization of economic power. He also favored the nationalization of industries, banks,
and insurance companies, because private ownership control over resources and means of
production is the root cause of inequality.
6. Against unjust interference in private life and for democratic system:
Lohia believed that freedom and democracy of the individual can be achieved only through
socialism because the main goal of socialism is to promote the freedom of the individual.In
this regard,Democracy is a system of providing proper opportunities for development keeping
faith in the dignity and glory of the individual. Lohia has highlighted the importance of civil
liberties. Such as the right to work, travel, language-expression and education and health
protection. Lohia is of the view that government employees should not be deprived of
political rights like joining political parties etc. In the socialist system, most of the citizens
are government employees, it is not justified to deprive them of political rights.

128
7. Against weapons and for Satyagraha:
Lohia was influenced by Gandhi’s non-violent method. Therefore, he was not in favor of
bringing a violent revolution for change. He never supported the dictatorial system of Russia
and the violent policies of Stalin. He was of the view that the path of satyagraha is the right
way to oppose the faulty law. Apart from this, he was also against interference by the
Parliament in the work of the judiciary. According to him the power of the Parliament to
amend the Constitution should be limited, otherwise it can become a dictator by exercising
this power arbitrarily.
Lohia’s dedicated pluralism was a supporter of the protection of public rights like
Laski’s pluralism. Lohia emphasized the importance of shovel (symbol of action), mat
(traditional symbol of democracy) and jail (resistance to evil) and supported satyagraha,
while supporting non-violent means of struggle instead of violent measures. Lohio has
described the goal of democracy and socialism as a proper (respectable) standard of living
instead of establishing a high standard of living. He also favored the establishment of a world
parliament to establish an egalitarian system at the world level. It will prove to be effective in
establishing world peace and international economic development.
In relation to these seven revolutions, Lohia, broadly speaking, these are seven
revolutions. Seven revolutions are going on simultaneously in the world. Try to run them
together in your country also. All the people who have caught the revolution should follow it
and increase it. Increasingly, it may be such a coincidence that today’s man, fighting against
all the injustices, can create such a society and such a world in which inner peace and outer or
material society can be formed.
11.5 Thoughts of Lohia on Indian Culture
Lohia embodies balance and harmony. His ideal was the determination to establish a world-
culture. He was determined to establish a physical, geographical, national world-culture from
the heart. Lohia not only had a great love for Indian culture but also the soul of the country
would not find another example of him touching the heart. He developed a worldview by
breaking the European boundaries of socialism and the national boundaries of spirituality. He
believed that the real and true fusion of Western science and Indian spirituality can take place
only when both are modified in such a way that they are able to complement each other.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia had a deep understanding of Indian culture and society. He used
to combine this understanding of his with theoretical politics. Lohia envisioned a grand
Ramayana Mela to celebrate India’s diverse social, cultural and political traditions. He
planned to read and perform several versions of this epic. Lohia’s demand from Mother India
was - “O Mother of India! Make us with Shiva’s mind and free heart as well as the dignity of
life.” He thought that wherever there is misery and poverty, subjugation and suffering in the
world, it should be a matter of shame for our civilizations. While dreaming of building a new
world, he recognized the importance of his cultural heritage, cleaning rivers, saving
Himalayas, liberation of Tibet, Goa liberation struggle, language-policy, Ramayana fair,
tragedy of partition of India etc. made his ideological basis.
129
11.6 Lohia’s Thoughts on Mother Tongue
One of the major issues of Dr. Lohia’s socialist dream was ‘Remove English’. Lohia did not
consider language only as a medium of expression. They also considered it as an expression
of human desires, aspirations, and dreams. Whose language is snatched away lives the life of
animals and plants. There can be no creativity in that. Therefore, the nation from which its
language is taken away becomes dead. He does not have the ability to change himself and
develop himself. One of the reasons why India was dying and surrendering to foreign
invaders for almost two centuries, where there was a separation between the ruling and the
ruled classes arising out of the varna system, this separation also increased due to language.
A language that is stranger to the common people builds a wall between the ruler and the
ruled. For a long time, the language of government was Sanskrit, later Persian and then
English. English remained the language of the rulers even after the attainment of
independence, although the leaders of our freedom movement had dreamed of replacing
English with Indian languages. But after independence, our leaders betrayed the freedom
movement and made English the main language of education, governance etc.
Dr. Lohia wanted to remove English from all fields of education, justice etc. and wanted
to bring Hindi and other Indian languages in its place. In Tamil Nadu, there was a lot of
opposition to his ideas and to the Remove English Movement. According to Lohia, the
English language divides the country into two parts. One is the aristocracy and the other the
common people. Despite the provisions of the Constitution, not removing English from the
official language is a conspiracy against the common people of the aristocracy. According to
Dr. Lohia, the English language is going to bring poverty, enslavement of mind, destroy the
creative power, stop the development of the country in every way and crush the national self-
respect. He agreed to set up a bilingual or multilingual center to solve the Sangh’s language
problem. They were ready to use English as the contact language for the coastal countries,
provided that the work of governance in all the territories was carried out in their own
languages.
11.7 Lohia’s Concept of Social Justice
In fact, the ultimate goal of social justice is that the weaker sections of the society, who are
not even able to maintain themselves, should also ensure their participation in development.
Like handicapped, orphaned children, deprived sections of the society etc. Dalits, minorities,
poor people, women should not feel insecure. All the modern justice systems of the world try
to live up to the test of natural justice, the ultimate goal is that the interest of the weakest
section of the society can be protected and there should be no injustice. Ram Manohar Lohia
awakened this concept of social justice on a large scale in India. Lohia propounded principles
like democratic socialism, Chaukhamba plan and Sapta Kranti to achieve social justice,
which have been described in detail in this article. Although Lohia’s ideas cannot be fully
implemented in this era of liberalization, but his views on the end of casteism, communalism
and gender discrimination are important. His conception regarding public participation and
public awareness in democracy is an important contribution in the ideological field of Indian
130
politics. Lohia opposed the English language and stressed on maintaining the prestige of all
Indian languages. He favored equal education for all up to the primary level. He also
supported the abolition of zamindari and redistribution of agricultural land. He wanted the
abolition of caste system and implementation of reservation policy. He asked to keep
religious principles and politics separate, because mixing them gives rise to communalism.
He was against the centralization of power like the pluralists.
The concept of social justice is based on the urge to treat all human beings as equal.
According to which no person should be discriminated against based on social, religious, and
cultural prejudices. Everyone should have such minimum resources to realize a general
concept of ‘good life’. This concept of social justice and its associated expressions are
prominently used in the realm of political theory in both developed and developing countries.
And perhaps this is the reason that it was decided during the Indian independence movement
itself that the basic character of independent India would be that of a socialist state. Gandhi
was not a socialist in the declared form, but his idea of Sarvodaya underscores the need for
and importance of socialism and social justice. Dr. Ambedkar, a pioneer among the architects
of modern India, was originally an economist. His views and the nature of the constitution
support the concept of welfare state. In Indian politics, Lohia carries forward this tradition
and has always been demanding from the government that the center of policymaking should
be the welfare of the Bahujan or the development of the entire Indian people. In which
women are also included, farmers are also rural, the government should make policy for the
socially and economically backward people so that the concept of freedom can be completely
eternal. But here, it is a pity that Lohia could never get these demands fulfilled by the then
ruling parties in his life. After his death, many parties were formed on his idea, but these
parties also made complete compromise with his ideas in return for getting power in electoral
politics.
11.8 Lohia’s Policy of Reservation for Backwards Classes
In order to build a strong opposition, the Socialists decided to make the basis of the backward
caste sections of the agricultural community. On the other hand the emerging happy sections
of the backward castes after independence and zamindari abolition also needed a party which
would give expression to their political aspirations and eventually pave the way for their
coming to power. It is in this background that Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia gave the slogan of
reservation for the backward: “SANSOPA has tied knot, backward is sixty in a hundred”.
And the destruction of castes can happen only when the oppressed castes are given special
and unequal opportunities. For this, the principle of protection of sixty hundred has to be
accepted. Whether worthless, women, Shudras, Harijans, backward classes, tribals and
weavers etc. have to be given sixty-hundred protection. (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, ‘Caste
System’ p.-196).
Dr. Lohia tried to implement this principle of his special occasion with the slogan of
‘hundred me sixty’ in his organization as well. He said: “I got the calculations done today.
When I saw the ministers and presidents in those provinces, about fifteen, they came to know
131
that about 17-18 are from the upper castes. And those who are 12-13 are from the oppressed
castes and the small castes. To be honest, even they should not be called small castes because
most of them are such castes like Mudaliar or Reddy. (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia ‘Experience
of the Tour of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar,’ 1959 speech at Hyderabad. p-32).
In 1960, he suggested his party’s national president Bhupendra Narayan Mandal to take a
proposal to dissolve the party’s national committee to regional committee for this purpose.
But, The Board did not allow this proposal to come. Then Dr. Lohia had said that ‘Shudras
were killed by a Shudra. After the merger of SOPA and Prasopa in 1964, the ad-hoc
committee of SANSOPA that was formed also shows an attempt to implement the principle
of ‘sixty in a hundred’. The 27 members of the committee included 4 Yadavs, 3 Koiris, 1
Kurmi, 1 Nai, 2 Banias, 1 Muslim, 5 Rajputs, 4 Brahmins, 3 Bhumihars and two from other
castes.
In 1977, on the lines of Lohia’s non-Congressism, the Janata Party was formed under the
guardianship of Jayaprakash Narayan and defeated the Congress in the 1977 elections and
formed the government at the Center and in the states of North India. The Janata Party had
promised in its election manifesto that if it came to power, the backward classes would be
given special opportunities in government jobs in the light of the recommendations of the
Kaka Kalelkar Commission. But as soon as it came to power, Morarji Desai’s government
started reluctant to implement it. When the pressure of the members of the party increased, on
20 September 1978 to determine the criteria to define the socially and educationally
backward classes, to recommend measures for their upliftment. The Backward Classes
Commission was constituted under the chairmanship of B P. Mandal (Ashok Kumar Sinha:
2006; p-88).
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia’s reservation policy created an uproar in the social and political
circles in India. In 1990 there were agitations regarding the Bofors issue. Non-Congress
movements started under the leadership of Vishwanath Pratap Singh. The slogan was “Raja
nahi fakir hai, desh ki takdeer hai.” Later The Congress was defeated and Vishwanath Pratap
Singh became the Prime Minister. This mystic Prime Minister finally implemented the
recommendation of Mandal Commission and implemented reservation for backward castes in
central government jobs. Although due to the reservation policy of Dr. Lohia, even though
Karpoori Thakur in Bihar and Vishwanath Pratap Singh in the center had to listen to all the
rhetoric and their government fell, but none of the succeeding government mustered the
courage to end the reservation. The social environment gradually calmed down and the
reservation of backwards remained in force. After 1990, the authority of the backward
gradually started taking universal form. The question of giving sixty out of a hundred to
backwards, which had taken the form of a sharp controversy in the 80s and 90s. Now it
became a question of national consensus and the politics of backwards gradually became
party aligned.

132
11.9 Lohia’s Party Socialism: The Politics of Non-Congressism
During the Indian independence movement, leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Subhash Chandra
Bose, Manvendra Nath Rai, Acharya Narendra Dev, Jai Prakash Narayan and Lohia etc.
popularized the socialist ideology within and outside the Indian National Congress so that
people became aware of this ideology. To fight economic and social inequality and build a
harmonious, inequality-free Indian society. Their aim was the attainment of Swaraj in a
socialist manner through the platform of the Indian National Congress and then the
establishment of socialism. In 1927, Jawaharlal Nehru visited Russia and other European
countries and was greatly influenced by the new Soviet society.
In 1929, at the Lahore session of the Congress, he declared that I am a socialist and a
democrat and I do not believe in kings and princes. I also do not believe in the system which
gives birth to modern kings in industries. If India has to end its poverty and inequality, then it
will have to adopt a holistic socialist programme. I have understood that the solution to
India’s poverty, unemployment and inequality is possible only in the socialist system
(Venudhar Pradhan: 1973; p. 93).
The Congress Socialist Party was formed in 1934 as a political party within the
Congress. Ram Manohar Lohia had an important contribution in the formation of ‘Congress
Samajwadi Party’. In 1934, the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee was held in
Patna, in which the conditions after the ‘Civil Disobedience Movement’ were adjourned after
the Chauri Chaura incident were discussed. The crisis in front of the Congress was that what
should be the future course? The Mahatma was silent. The country was in trouble. Dr.
Ramnohar Lohia played an important role in the Patna Conference of Socialists. The main
objective of the Patna Conference was to present the new possibilities of independence in
front of the country in place of the political apathy of the Congress. The second main task of
this conference was to organize the left-oriented youth of all the provinces of India in one
organization and prepare a clear outline of the Indian independence movement in front of
them, which was a separate and independent action plan from the Congress. The aim of the
Congress Socialist Party was to establish complete independence and a socialist society.
According to the CSP, the meaning of socialism was not only to change the laws regarding
the right to property, but to eliminate the entire inequality created in opposition to humanity
(Narendra Pathak: 2008; p. 97).
The ideology of the Congress Socialist Party was put forth by Jayaprakash Narayan for
his approval at the Ramgarh Congress session in 1940. He was the secretary of the Congress
Socialist Party. But due to some reasons the draft of CSP presented by Jayaprakash in that
session of Congress could not be accepted, but it was accepted by Mahatma Gandhi with
conscience. Later Gandhiji wrote his response in favor of him in ‘Harijan’ (Jayaprakash
Narayan ‘Socialism’ Sarvodaya and Democracy’ p-37).
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia was also very active and effective in Ramgarh Congress. Dr.
Lohia has written that when the draft of the Congress Socialist Party came ready, it only

133
mentioned about the creation of a socialist society, there was no mention of complete
independence in it. On which there was a lot of debate. Dr. Lohia said that it is true that the
meaning of freedom lies in the formation of a socialist society, but the first and foremost aim
of a community which is bound in the loop of imperialism is to be nothing less than a clear
demand for complete independence. Needed. Mahatma Gandhi agreed with the point of
complete independence (Dr. Ramnohar Lohia ‘History of the Socialist Movement’ Ram
Manohar Lohia Samata Trust, Hyderabad p-23).
In this way, during the Quit India Movement of 1942, leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan,
Ram Manohar Lohia and Aruna Asafali of CSP encouraged the public against the British
government by staying underground. The CSP continued to work to strengthen the national
movement and the Congress till 1947. Among the leaders of the socialist party, Narendra Dev
and Jayaprakash Narayan were Marxists. Marxism had more influence on him. Compared to
him, Lohia was more influenced by Gandhism and Gandhiji’s way of life. But in the
meantime, in 1947, Sardar Patel opposed dual membership in the Congress.
Then after the independence of India, in the Kanpur session of 1947, the ‘Congress
Samajwadi Party’ separated from the Congress and the CSP removed the word ‘Congress’
from its name and a new socialist party was established under the leadership of Lohia. It
started work for social freedom and equality. Elimination of land revenue from unprofitable
agricultural land, fair wages for workers, price stability, removal of English language, etc.
were the main goals of this party.
In March 1949, the Patna Conference of the Congress Socialist Party abandoned the
devotion to the principle of democratic centralism. After 1949, the socialist party adopted a
constructive approach towards social and economic problems and tried to follow the
democratic methodology. The Second National Conference of the Socialist Party was held in
Patna from 6 to 10 March 1949. Jaiprakash Narayan was given the responsibility of Bihar,
Bengal and Orissa and Dr. Lohia was given the responsibility of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Vindhya Pradesh. In this conference of Patna, ‘Hind Kisan Panchayat’ was established on
March 9, 1949. The burden of its presidency was entrusted on the shoulders of Dr. Lohia. In
Bihar, Ramanandan Mishra was given the responsibility of the organization and Karpoori
Thakur was given the responsibility of the organization. In the conference of Patna, the
socialist movement identified its base land and made its strategy accordingly and made a new
legislation. At the same time, Dr. Lohia envisioned a system of four pillars namely village,
district, suba and center and named it “Chowkhambha Raj” (Omkar Sharad: 1987; p. 187).
To achieve the above goal, it organized mass demonstrations at various places, yet this
party was unable to do any concrete and permanent work for the progress of the socialist
movement, which is confirmed by the defeat of this party in the general elections of 1952.
After the defeat in the first general elections, due to the efforts of the Samajwadi Party, the
Kisan Praja Party merged with this party and as a result, the Praja Samajwadi Dal was born.
This new party expressed its faith in peaceful means. Its goal was a democratic society free
from economic, social and political exploitation. Small scale business and decentralization

134
were the main goals of this group. During that time, this party fought many struggles for
farmers and fundamental rights. In 1954, this party did civil disobedience against the increase
of canal rate in thirteen districts of Uttar Pradesh. But at the same time, the socialist policy of
the Avadi session of Congress was welcomed by a leader of this party, Ashok Mehta and his
other comrades, as a result of which this party also suffered a split and on December 31,
1955, Ram Manohar Lohia replaced this party with a new one. Formed the party Socialist
Party.
In the general elections held in 1952, 57 and 1962, the socialist parties could not win
many seats in terms of numbers but they played the role of effective opposition in Parliament.
In the second general election of 1957, the Praja Socialist Party got 10.4% of the total votes,
which was the highest after the Congress. It got a total of 19 seats in the Lok Sabha. But in
the next few elections, the vote percentage of the party continued to decline. In 1962, it got a
total of 12 seats in the Lok Sabha, getting 6.8% of the total votes. Similarly, in 1967, 3.1% of
the total votes and got 13 seats. In the parliamentary by-elections held in 1963, Acharya
Kriplani and Dr. Lohia won the elections further strengthened the role of the opposition in
Parliament and for the first time, a motion of no confidence against the Nehru government
was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Yogendra Yadav points out in an article that for Lohia the liberal view of karma that
Gandhi pursued in his political career is always better than the extreme view of karma that
Marx explained. But it is possible to do so in a situation of wealth and power rather than in a
state of poverty and backwardness. National degradation in the Indian context led Lohia to
commit diligent extremism. His party was caught between communism and Nehru. From the
organizational point of view the party was very weak and based on his personal charisma.
After the split from the Praja Socialist Party, the Socialist Party became dependent on Lohia’s
just, clear and increasingly bitter personality (Yadav, Yogendra (2018). Philosophy of Ram
Manohar Lohia. Research scholar. Issue: 1. Year: 2018, Page No. 18).
Despite all these circumstances, the Socialist Party under the leadership of Lohia
intensified the socialist movement again and started an anti-Congress policy. It activated
politics outside Parliament rather than parliamentary politics. This party considered
Satyagraha, demonstration etc. as the main means of struggle and on this basis also tried for
socialist unity. It is worth mentioning here that Lohia tried to integrate three traditions in
party politics. The fierce struggle of the communists, the electoral and parliamentary
activities of the democratic socialists and the constructive activities of the Gandhians. His
slogan ‘Spade, Vote and Jail’ is a symbol of this unity. which talks of transformation through
integration. Struggle is the main instrument of socialist action.
In the founding session of the Samajwadi Party, President SM Joshi, while hoisting the
flag, called upon the members of the party to make a fundamental revolution in the country.
About twenty-one hundred delegates participated in this convention. Lohia’s ideas have a
strong presence in the above objectives of the party. In the meeting of the Socialist Party in
June, 1964 AD, its election symbol is considered as hut and the Election Commission has

135
also recognized it. After which Lohia’s non-Congress strategy in electoral politics showed
color in the 1967 general elections.
Dr. Lohia not only transformed the socialist movement but also changed the nature of
Indian politics. Using the three democratic weapons of jail, shovel and vote, and using the
parliamentary platform, he made his party a powerful and revolutionary party in spite of the
adverse attitude of the propaganda media and the upper-class middle class. This was no small
achievement, but Lohia was not satisfied with it. They wanted the Congress party, which had
dominated Indian politics like a giant rock and was drying up the fertile elements of Indian
politics, to be displaced from power. He felt that due to the feudalist, dynastic and casteist
tendencies of the newly independent Asian and African countries, India would move towards
a one-party dictatorship.
Mahatma Gandhi may also have been afraid of this, due to which Gandhi tried to give
the reins of Congress in the hands of socialists in the last days and when he did not succeed in
this, the idea of disbanding the Congress and converting it into a public servant union Rakha
(Mast Ram Kapoor: 2003; p. 103). Lohia wanted to displace the Congress from power. One,
because it had become a party of status quo and had no desire for any fundamental change.
Secondly because due to this, the second or third option of politics was not seen for the
public. When the fourth general election of 1967 came near, he made a strategy to fight the
elections against the Congress by uniting all the opposition parties.
Dr. Lohia not only transformed the socialist movement but also changed the nature of
Indian politics. Using the three democratic weapons of jail, shovel and vote, and using the
parliamentary platform, he made his party a powerful and revolutionary party in spite of the
adverse attitude of the propaganda media and the upper-class middle class. This was no small
achievement, but Lohia was not satisfied with it. They wanted the Congress party, which had
dominated Indian politics like a giant rock and was drying up the fertile elements of Indian
politics, to be displaced from power. He felt that due to the feudalist, dynastic and casteist
tendencies of the newly independent Asian and African countries, India would move towards
a one-party dictatorship.
Mahatma Gandhi may also have been afraid of this, due to which Gandhi tried to give
the reins of Congress in the hands of socialists in the last days and when he did not succeed in
this, the idea of disbanding the Congress and converting it into a public servant union Rakha
(Mast Ram Kapoor: 2003; p. 103). Lohia wanted to displace the Congress from power. One,
because it had become a party of status quo and had no desire for any fundamental change.
Secondly because due to this, the second or third option of politics was not seen for the
public. When the fourth general election of 1967 came near, he made a strategy to fight the
elections against the Congress by uniting all the opposition parties.
To give an ideological thrust to this strategy, a conference of the United Socialist Party
was held in Kota in April 1966. In this, while propounding the principle of non-Congressism,
it was said in the policy statement–

136
 SANSOPA will give priority to strengthen itself and widen its base but at the same
time will adopt a positive attitude towards other parties.
 To achieve its objective, SANSOPA has to identify those parties with which
organizational merger is possible or with whom merger is not possible. A continuous
effort should be made to attract the parties of the first class. Friendly relations should
be made for the exchange of ideas with other class parties.
 On the one hand there are parties whose ideology is towards internationalism and one
party rule, on the other hand there are parties with attachment to the property-holding
classes. There are some parties which emphasize on regional unity as opposed to
national unity and represent the aspirations of the Depressed Classes. Sansopa should
make close relation with them.
 Political parties of India are currently in the construction stage. Therefore, sticking a
badge on anyone or making hasty generalizations would not be appropriate.
 SANSOPA should continually strive to keep the Left parties away from the ideals of
international loyalty and totalitarianism, and the Right to become more tolerant of
minorities and socialized property. SANSOPA should not forget that this partial evil
of these parties is due to the greater evil of the Congress Party and the Congress
Government.
 Co-ordination with other opposition parties for effective action in the Legislative
Assembly and Lok Sabha, also for elections to Legislative Committees and Upper
Houses.
 SANSOPA should give direction to the aspirations of the people and lead the people’s
struggle against tyranny and oppression. Cooperation with other opposition parties
should be given when needed in specific issues and people’s struggle.
 The election should be considered a part of a wider mass struggle. The goal of the
party is to remove the Congress government and bring in a socialist government. For
this, Sansopa will have to show flexibility. There should be minimum division of
votes of the opposition parties and there should be coordination among the various
opposition parties on the basis of constituencies. In this, the achievements of the
political parties in the past elections will be an important determinant.
 SANSOPA will contest the elections in the name of its party. Its representatives in the
Legislative Assemblies will not join such alliances which destroy the identity of the
party. In the event of defeat of the Congress inside and outside the party, discussions
will be initiated to form a non-Congress government. Clear and concrete programs of
SANSOPA will be a guide for delegates and members.
 SANSOPA should stay away from non-Congress or secular or Left front including
Congress.

137
  The main task of SANSOPA would be to unite all the forces of socialism and
democracy under its flag and to strengthen the respective organizations and to prepare
a powerful mass movement against the bureaucratic, capitalist and feudal system.
 SANSOPA will try to make revolutionary struggle, concrete socialist program,
patriotism spirit, strengthen decentralized democracy and make it a weapon of
downtrodden and weaker sections.
This strategy of the Kota Conference was to give a new direction to socialist history.
According to this strategy, the elections to the Lok Sabha and various Legislative Assemblies
of 1967 were fought. The rule of Congress ended in many states including Bihar and its
power at the center also waned. Socialists had been avoiding power as an inevitable evil. Dr.
Lohia aroused the desire of the socialists to capture power by considering it as a weapon of
public interest and use Lok Sabha assembly etc. as a platform of mass struggle. And with the
same objectives of Lohia, Sansopa participated for the first time in the 1967 elections. If we
look at the background of this electoral success, it is known that Lohia made preparations for
it state wise and on 15 January 1967, Dr. Lohia while addressing the meeting of the
opposition leaders of Bihar in the Legislator Club called for forming a united front against the
current government. Appealed. He said that the people of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are fed up
with the corrupt Congress government and are eager to remove it from the government. He
said that the third President of India would be non-Congress and Congress would get only 25
percent votes. A united front was formed on the appeal of Dr. Lohia.
In which the following parties were involved-
 United Socialist Party
 Praja Socialist Party
 Revolutionary Socialist Party
 Communist Party of India
 Communist Party of India (M)
 Mass
 Jan Congress
 National Unity Front
It was against this background that the 1967 general election was held. Before the election,
there were 17 MLAs of SANSOPA including one Bindesari Prasad Mandal who had joined
SANSOPA from Congress in the Legislative Assembly itself. After the elections, the number
of Sansopa MLAs increased to 68, out of which 45 belonged to backward Dalit and tribal
communities. Sansopa got 17.6 percent of the votes. CPI(M)’s 24 and Prasopa’s 17
candidates were victorious. The number of backward caste MLAs in the assembly reached
82. In 1967, Dhanik Lal Mandal was elected the first Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
from a backward caste. Between 1953 and 1965, there was not a single backward caste

138
member for the Rajya Sabha. For the first time, SANSOPA sent Bhupendra Narayan Mandal
to the Rajya Sabha in 1966.
After the 1967 elections in the Legislative Assembly, the Congress was the largest party,
but it had won only 128 seats after independence. SANSOPA was the second largest party
and on the basis of non-Congressism, talks were held between SANSOPA, PRASOPA, CPI,
Jana Sangh, Jankrantidal to form a non-Congress government on Dr. Lohia’s formula. A
thirty-three-point program was prepared and a joint legislative party was formed. Dr. Lohia
was in favor of making Karpoori Thakur the Chief Minister but a section of the upper caste
leaders was against him. As a result, the first non-Congress United Front government was
formed under the leadership of Mahamaya Prasad Sinha. Karpoori Thakur became the deputy
Chief minister. There was a deep controversy in the government from the very beginning
regarding Bindesari Prasad Mandal. Despite being a member of the Lok Sabha, he was made
a minister in the Sanvid government.
Dr. Lohia was strongly against this and wanted the Mandal to remain in the Lok Sabha.
When there were ten days left in six months, Mandal broke the disgruntled MLAs of Sansopa
and other parties with the lure of ministerial posts and formed the Shoshit Dal. Mandal was
then the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the Sansopa. It was all a trick of
Congress. Congress supported the Shoshit Dal government of Mandal. The government of the
Shoshit Dal of the Mandal had criticized the contract government for not implementing the
policy of 60 in the backward quarters. Unfortunately, in this government, all 38 MLAs of the
Shoshit Dal, who broke away from different parties, were made ministers. This government
lasted for 20 days (3 March to 22 March 68).
Dr. Lohia must have got some satisfaction on the success of his strategy of non-
Congressism, although he must have been aware of the poison emanating from this ocean
churning. If the rules and principles started to diverge due to selfishness in the contract
government, they must have been upset. But before this, it could be stopped, on October 11,
1967, Dr. Lohia died. Due to which the socialist movement suffered a great setback and its
pace slowed down. And after the coming of Indira Gandhi in the year 1971, the socialists
were wiped out in a way, when in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, it got two seats with only
one percent of the vote. But before the general election of 1967, the Election Commission
gave PRASOPA the election symbol hut and SANSOPA a banyan.
Eventually in 1972, the United Socialist Party of George Fernandez and the Praja
Socialist Party merged, which was named the Socialist Party. This party also joined the
Janata Party on the request of JP, participating in Jayaprakash Narayan’s nationwide ‘Indira
Hatao Desh Bachao’ movement against the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1977. In
2013, this party headed by Subramanian Swamy also merged with the Bharatiya Janata Party.
11.10 Conclusion
Moving to the conclusion of the chapter, we see that Lohia was the lifeblood of the socialist
party. He was a leader whose thinking, lifestyle, character and social commitment were clear,

139
and his works can be called the ideological history of the socialist movement. In this way we
find that since the time Shri Ganesh of socialist ideology became Shri Ganesh, Lohia played
an important role in it. Indian social scientists also believe that Lohia’s unique explanation
has contributed to the strengthening of regional parties along with socialist ideology in India
since the sixties. It has not only strengthened caste identities but has also increased the
penetration of marginalized castes in politics. It cannot be denied here that the slogan of
social justice, continuously awakened by Lohia, has inspired various sections in different
societies to demand and fight for a life of dignity for themselves.
Even in theoretical discourse, many dimensions have been added to social justice from
utopian socialism to the present day. It is also worth mentioning that the struggle for social
justice in developing societies has been surrounded by many complexities as compared to
developed societies. People in these societies have on most occasions faced a lot of structural
violence in the struggle for social justice and on many occasions even state violence. But the
ongoing struggles for social justice have brought about fundamental changes in these
societies. Overall, over time many new dimensions have been added to the theorization of
social justice and as a concept or slogan, it has also awakened the groups living in silence for
a long time for itself, and in this awakening in India Ram Manohar Lohia’s role is unique.
Thus, we see that the number of parties and leaders who have followed Lohia is the
largest in the history of the country. Bihar became the first laboratory of his socialist
programs. When influenced by him, some leaders like Karpoori Thakur, Ramanand Tiwari,
Ram Sundar Das, etc. became the leaders of Bihar. Among the later leaders, Lalu Prasad
Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan etc. have all been calling themselves
socialists and have considered Dr. Lohia as their source of inspiration. Similarly, in Uttar
Pradesh too many youths like Janeshwar Mishra, Mulayam Singh Yadav were getting
influenced by his ideas and eager to participate in politics. In this way, Dr. Lohia remained a
source of inspiration for the younger generations as a wonderful personality of Indian
politics, a creative politician, and a selfless Karma Yogi.
11.11 Practice Questions
1. Critically examine the idea of Chaukhamba Rajya.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
….………………………………………………………………………………………
…….……………………………………………………………………………………
……….…………………………………………………………………………………
2. What do you mean by Sapta Kranti? Is it relevant today?
………………………………………………………………………………………….
….………………………………………………………………………………………
…….……………………………………………………………………………………
……….…………………………………………………………………………………

140
 3. Write an Essay on Ram Manohar Lohia.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
….………………………………………………………………………………………
…….……………………………………………………………………………………
……….…………………………………………………………………………………
4. Explain the concept of Social Justice. Do you think that Lohia’s concept of Social
Justice is relevant today?
………………………………………………………………………………………….
….………………………………………………………………………………………
…….……………………………………………………………………………………
……….…………………………………………………………………………………
11.12 Bibliography

 Arumugam, M. (1978). Socialist Thought in India: The Contribution of Ram Manohar

Lohia. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers
 Guha, Ramachandra (2010). Makers of Modern India. new delhi: Penguin Viking
 Kapoor, Mastram (2011). Collected Works of Dr. Rammanohar Lohia (9 Volume
Set). New Delhi: Anamika Publishers
 Kapoor, Mastram (2019). Remembering Dr. Lohia. New Delhi: Anamika Publishers
 Kelkar, Indumati (2009). Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, his Life and Philosophy. New
Delhi: Anamika Publishers
 Kelkar, Indumati (2012). Ram Manohar Lohia. New Delhi: National Book Trust
 Lohia and Parliament, Published by Lok Sabha Secretariat (1991)
 Mishra, Girish and Braj Kumar Pandey (1992). Rammanohar Lohia: The Man and his
Ism. New Delhi: Eastern Books
 Prasad, Chandra Deo (2021). Lohia: A Political Biography. New Delhi: Atlantic
Publishers

141