M.N.Roy and his idea of Buddhism

M.N. Roy on Brahminical Religion and Buddhism

Vidya Bhushan RAWAT

“Societal violation of human rights is as serious, if not more than, state violation. And, caste divides, and divisiveness and dissension will always stand in the way of India’s progress. If we want India to occupy her rightful place in the comity of nations, we must recognize that the worst forms of human rights violations and infringements of civil liberties are caused by the ‘varnavayvastha’ directly or indirectly,’ say Dr R.M.Pal in his background paper of the seminar. There were a number of intellectuals in per-independent India who waged war on the system referred to here. M.N.Roy was one of them. This paper makes an attempt to analyze his views and philosophy.

The values of human dignity and human rights in India were recognized in ancient India despite the fact that the varna system looked down upon various sects which were considered not only untouchables but un-seeable as well. Right from the time of the Buddha there have been various movements against the cultural violation of human rights. The caste based Hindu society virtually looked down, with utter contempt, upon Dalits, women and working masses. They were relegated to the status of shudras and avarnas whose very sight could pollute a Brahmin, supposed to be the brokers of God.

Buddha was against the caste system. He desanskritised the education system, by preaching ‘pali” language which is voxpopuli of the time. For the first time education was allowed for even the outcastes. ‘Education for all’ was Buddha’s special gift to India. That women were allowed to become nun-monks was an extraordinary achievement in the circumstances and condition prevailing in India at that time. Mahavira was also a progressive intellectual and fought against orthodoxy. In the medieval period, Nanak, Shaikh Farid, Kabir and other Sufis fought against the caste system.

II
Since I am going to deal with M.N.Roy’s views on Buddhism I may refer to Dr Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism. He said: “There are two aspects of conversion, social as well as religious, material as well as spiritual. Whatever may be the aspects or line of thinking it is necessary to understand the beginning, the nature of untouchability and how it is practiced? Without this understanding, you will not be able to realize the real meaning underlying my declaration of conversion. In order to have a clear understanding of untouchability and its practice in real life, I want you to recall stories of the atrocities perpetrated against you. Very few of you might have realized why all this happens. To me it is very necessary, that we understand it.” While deciding to embrace Buddhism, he said: “Three factors are required for the uplift of an individual. They are sympathy, equality and liberty. Can you say by experience that any of these factors exist for you in Hinduism? The Hindus can be ranked among those cruel people whose utterances and acts are two poles apart. They have this Ram on their tongues and a knife under their armpits. They speak like saints and but act like butchers”1. Citing his reason for embracing Buddhism in a broadcast on All India Radio on October 3rd, 1954, he said: “Every man should have a philosophy, for every one must have a standard by which to measure his conduct. Negatively, I reject Hindu social philosophy propounded in the Bhagwatgita based as it is, on the Triguna philosophy of the Sankhya philosophy, which in my judgment is a cruel perversion of the philosophy, which in my judgement is a cruel perversion of the philosophy of Kapila, and which had made the caste system and the system of graded inequality the law of Hindu social life. Positively my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha”2.

Apropos of Buddhism and fight against harmful theories of Hinduism on the philosophical and ideological plane, one Indian who stand out but who is not widely read, is M.N.Roy. Even a cursory study of Roy and Ambedkar would indicate how close their philosophical postulates are. Born a Brahmin, Roy worked with Lenin and Stalin and occupied the highest positions in the communist hierarchy, the Communist International. Subsequently, he gave up communism, went beyond communism and propounded his philosophy of scientific humanism. Roy was the only Marxist who came down heavily on the Brahminical social order of Sanskritic Hinduism and remained so until the last day of his life. Almost all his writings during the period 1930-36 while he was in jail are devoted to this aspect. Many of these were printed and reprinted during his life time.

One such treatise is Materialism in which Roy explains the rational Indian philosophy of Lokayata, Charvak Darshan and Buddhism. “The spiritual revolt represented by the Indian materialists eventually culminated in the rise of Buddhism which all but liquidated the Vadic natural religion and freed India from Brahminical domination for several hundred years. Internal evidence proves that Vedanta sutras were composed for combating Buddhism. Therefore, they could not be regarded as the direct outcome of the speculative thought recoded in the Upanishads. The composition of earlier Upnishads and Vedanta Sutras must have been separated by several hundred years, during which period the spiritual development of India, was in the direction of materialism, represented by Kanada, Kapila and many others, and of rationalism, represented by the Buddhists and Jains subsequently. The triumph of Buddhism and its supremacy for so many centuries, prove that the metaphysical school of thought, and rationalism. It was only after the defeat of the Buddhist revolution that Vedantist metaphysics and pantheism were revived as the ideology of Brahminical orthodoxy.”3

The idealistic deviation of Buddhist philosophy was caused by its having enlisted the patronage of the upper classes. “In order to refute Brahminical dogma of eternal truth the rebels expounded the doctrines of momentariness of everything. In course of time, the doctrine of temporariness was applied not only to the physical but also to the mental phenomena. When the more civilized Dravidians were subjugated by the pastoral Aryans, the latter imposed upon the former social laws which checked the growth of the trading class and consequently of free thought. As regards the happiness of material possessions, of the beef-eating and soma drinking, the vedic priests were not averse to it. But in order to retain the position of power and privilege they could not let the masses participate in that happiness. Hence the spiritual superiority’ of Indo-Aryan culture”4.

Commending the role of Buddhism towards a just and rationale society Roy writes: “As the composite outcome of all the positive elements in the whole pervious history of Indian thought, Buddhism shook the very foundation of the hoary edifice of Brahminical orthodoxy. It disputed the authority of scriptures, vigorously condemned the sacrificial rites and rituals of the Vedic Natural Religion, it denied the existence even of an impersonal First Cause (the Brahman of the Upnishads_, and it discarded the doctrine of soul. For the first time, there began to develop in India a system of truly philosophical thought, having for its point of departure the atomism of the Nyaya-Vaisheshikha system and rationalist-mechanistic conception of nature contained in the Sankhya system”5.

An original thinker much ahead of his time, Roy was an iconoclast. He writes in his book, Fascism: Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice, while in jail 1930-36: “Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the roots of the philosophy of Fascism can be traced in the divine philosophy of the Gita, according to which all power (bhibhutis) on earth are the powers of God. Thus, philosophically, Fascism has no philosophy. Fascist philosophy is the logical outcome of the spiritualist way of life. The logical connection between the doctrines preached in the Gita and the Fascist neo-Hegelian metaphysical conception of the state, is easily perceived. As a matter of fact, the philosophy of Fascist dictatorship results directly from the modern schools of mysticism and spiritualism which represent reaction against the scientific view of life. Its Indian ancestry can be traced through Schopenhauer whose disciple Nietzsche, was the father of the philosophy of Fascism”6.

Indian establishment intellectuals never thought that the nationalism, even the one preached by Gandhiji, could give rise to fascist forces in the country. What we are witnessing today is fascism in the form of invocation of Hindutva cult and cultural nationalism in our country. If we analyse the events of Babri Masjid demolition and Pokharan nuclear explosions and how the Hindutva forces were dancing in the street as a symbol of Hindu victory, we can see the fascist tendencies of Hindutva forces coming to the fore thus proving Roy correct after so many years.

In his book New Orientation about how fascism will enter India, Roy observes: “Fascism is not a platonic idea like cowhood or treehood or horsehood, for all actual cows or trees or horses to fit in. fascism is a socio-political manifestation of our time and its pattern is determined by the peculiarities of the country in which it grows. In Germany fascism was different from that of Italy and fascism in the East European countries were different from the both. Therefore, we should not have an a priori notion about our enemy. Neither will Subhas Bose return as Indian Mussolini, nor Patel be Hitler of India. To put the point straight: Indian Fascism will be cultural; it will be a cultural reaction. Therefore, violence may not be such a very outstanding feature of Indian fascism… the Indian people can be more easily regimented spiritually because thanks to our cultural tradition they are predisposed that way”7.

Roy’s criticism of Indian nationalism and the nationalist leaders including Gandhiji might be based on his analysis as a Marxist but the fact remains that many Indian leaders were admirers of Hitler and Mussolini. Gandhiji met Mussolini in the 1930s and wrote to Romain Rolland: “Mussolini is an enigma to me. Many of the reforms he has made attract me. He seems to have dome a great deal for the peasantry. Of course the iron glove is there. But allowing that force is the basis of western society, Mussolini’s reforms deserve an impartial study. His care for the poor people, his opposition to over urbanization, his attempt to bring about co-ordination between capital and labour seem to me to demand very careful attention. What strikes me is that behind Mussolini’s ruthlessness is the motive of serving his people. Even behind his bombastic speeches there is a ring of sincerity and burning love for his people. Its also seems to me that the bulk of the Italians like Mussolini’s iron rule.” (Gandhi’s letter to Romain Rolland on Dec 20, 1931, Romain Rolland-Gandhi Correspondence: page 241).8 (It is interesting to note that when Gandhi was praising a fascist dictator, M.N.Roy, sitting in jail, was writing against the philosophy and practice of fascism.)

Roy apprehended that cultural nationalism would be a dangerous thing for India and might be responsible for the rise of a fascist state violating all norms of a civilized society. Today a large number of Hindutvavadi outfits are thriving as cultural nationalists with hardly any opposition from secularists, not even the Royists, who seem to have forgotten the rational and radical message of M.N.Roy. Today, we must understand what actually is this Indian culture, which Roy wanted us to get rid of as this culture gives rise to an unjust hierarchical society” “Spiritual culture has taught the Indian masses to point out the difference in the size of the five fingers of the same hand when their attention is drawn to the social inequity and inequality to which they are subjected. They have taught to accept their position as befitting their merit. They have not only been taught to be reconciled to their hard lot but to look upon the established social order as an expression of divine dispensation. Nietzsche also argued that ‘there being much hard and rought work to be done, some people must be held down in conditions that make them fit for this sort of work’. The entire caste system-that creation of the special genius of India-was inspired by the Aryan spirit of caste when he suggested that ‘masses of Asiatic’ and African barbarians could be imported so that uncivilized world might constantly be at the service of the civilized. Why not? Did not the Aryan Brahmans with the help of their warrior allies, condemn the bulk of the aboriginal population of India to perpetual servitude”9.

Reference may also be made to Roy’s approach to the communal and the Hindu Muslim question, which has continued to be a major source of societal violation of human rights. The only way to solve this problem, according to Roy, was for Hindus to recognize the positive aspects of Islam, and for Muslims to adhere to real Islamic tenets. Roy wrote in the Historical Role of Islam in jail 1930-36: “A critical investigation of the internal as well as external causes of the Muslim conquest of India is of practical value today. It will remove the prejudice that makes the orthodox Hindu look upon his Muslim neighbour as an inferior being. Freed from preconceived ideas, the Hindus will be in a position to appreciate the constructive consequences of Muslim coquets of India. That will enable them to live down the hatred of the conquered for the conquerors. Unless a radical change of attitude is brought about by a sober sense of history, the communal question will never be solved. The Hindus will never be able to look upon the Muslims as integral parts of the Indian nation until they come to appreciate the contribution they made towards the emergence of Indian society out of the chaos caused by the breakdown of the antique civilization. Besides a proper understanding of history derived from a correct understanding of the successful advent of the Muslims in India, will enable us to ascertain and stamp out the deeper causes of our present misfortune”10. “In view of the realistic reading of history, Hindu superciliousness towards the culture and religion of Muslim is absurd. It insults the history and injures the political future of our country. Learning from the Muslims Europe became the leader of modern civilization. Even today her best sons are not ashamed of the past indebtedness. Unfortunately, India could not fully benefit by the heritage of Islamic culture because she did not deserve the distinction. Now in the throes of a belated Renaissance, Indians both Hindus and Muslims could profitably draw inspiration from that memorable chapter of human culture and a proper appreciation of the historical value of that contribution would shock the Hindus out of their arrogant self-satisfaction, and cure the narrow mindedness of the Muslims of our day by bringing them face to face with the true spirit of the faith they profess”11. Else where Roy writes (1948): “Nationalism, heavily tainted by Hindu orthodoxy, bred Muslim communalism. Therefore, the ideal of Hindu-Muslim unity, placed before the country by Gandhiji could not be attained. During his last days he staked his life for restoring communal harmony… communal harmony is not possible in the mediaeval atmosphere of religious orthodoxy and fanaticism.”

Roy waged war against Fascism during the Second World War. He maintained that if the fascists were not defeated, human freedom could not survive and in that eventuality, the question of Indian independence would not arise. India would remain a perpetual slave to fascist powers. It was war between fascism and democracy. So he took a strong stand in favour of full Indian support for British was effort. His main arguments in this regard were: (1) that fascism was the greater evil and all forces should be rallied against it, and (2) that the British would emerge from the war so exhausted militarily and economically that it would have to grant independence to India. Dr Ambedkar joined the Viceroy’s Executive Council as a Member of the Labour Department because he too like Roy and thousands of other Indian intellectuals and leaders wanted that fascism must be defeated.

I may refer to Mr. Arun Shourie’s blasphemous attack on Roy and Ambedkar in his book, Worshipping the False Gods, regarding war efforts in which the Government sanctioned, cleared by the Central Legislature, an amount of Rs 13,000 per moth to Indian Federation of Labour, of which M.N.Roy was General Secretary, for pursuing and organizing anti-fascist activities. Dr Ambedkar as Member, Labour Department disbursed the amount. Roy personally did not receive any amount. His colleagues received the amount. Some of these persons rose to very high positions in free India making immense contribution towards the human rights movement in India and preserving its secular heritage. Mr. V.M.Tarkunde waged war on the rise of fascism in India in was in jail, all anti-fascists fought against the dictatorship of Indira Gandhi. Yet Mr. Arun Shourie, who one of Mr. Tarkunde’s followers in those dark days has now attacked Roy and Ambedkar for aligning themselves with anti-fascist forces which included the British during the second world war. Mr. Arun Shourie, who is today a leading Hindutavavadi intellectual belonging to Sangh Parivar has written the book denouncing Dr Ambedkar, for among other things, fighting the anti-fascist forces and for Shouries’s attack on Roy and Ambedkar is that both of them were philosophically and ideologically opposed to the Brahminical religion; Mr. Arun Shouri, an intellectual leader of the Sangh Parivar, and members of the Sangh Parivar are passionately, emotionally and thoughtlessly attached to the Brahminical religion.

I may quote what Mr V.M. Tarkunde writes in this connection: “Before giving details of this episode, I must explain in short the attitude of M.N.Roy and his colleagues like myself towards the Second World War and its possible impact on India’s struggle for freedom. We were of the view that it was an anti-fascist war, that it was a war, not between fascism and British imperialism, but between fascism and democracy, that if fascism succeeded in the war the result would be that democracy throughout the world would be destroyed and the chances of India acquiring democratic freedom would be wiped out for generations to come, that if on the other hand the war resulted in the defeat of fascism, democracy would be strengthened throughout the world including Great Britain and British imperialism itself would be weekend, that defeat of fascism would thus bring India nearer to the attainment of freedom and that since the defeat of fascism was necessary for our own freedom, we must unconditionally support the Government’s war efforts. We knew that this line of thinking, although quite correct, ran against the anti British sentiments of our people and would be highly unpopular, but the war had created a highly critical situation and we had to tell the people what was in their true interest, however unpalatable the truth may be. We regarded unconditional war support as an essential and vital part of our struggle for freedom. Subsequent history has fully corroborated Roy’s war analysis. I was asked by M.N.Roy in December 1942 whether I could leave my legal practice in Poona and whether I an my wife would become whole time workers of the Radical Democratic Party and the Indian Federation of Labour. I readily agreed and left for Bombay with my wife in January 1943 to do a whole time trade union work. Shortly thereafter Mr. D.R. Pradhan, an I.C.S. officer called me to his office and told me that I would be receiving a cheque of Rs13,000/- every month and that the money was to be utilized for anti-fascist propaganda in the working class in India. I soon received a list of about 50 persons including myself working in different parts of the country who were whole time workers of the Indian Federation of Labour. As far as I remember, the list was given to me by my senior colleague and friend V.B.Karnik (the will known trade union leader). The monthly cheques given to the whole timers varied from Rs 75/- to Rs 150/- per month. Most of the monthly amount was spent in publishing anti-fascist literature and some for traveling expenses. The same system continued when I shifted to Delhi towards the end of 1943. No part of Rs 13,000/- was sent to M.N. Roy who stayed normally at Dehradun. We were, of course, collecting donations for our other expenses from the sympathizers of the Radical Democratic Party and the Indian Federation of Labour. Most of the nearly 50 whole time workers had left their jobs and professions and sacrificed a great deal of work for the pittance which we could afford to give them. I am still deeply moved by the sacrifice they committed during the war period. This is the substance of the grave ‘scandal’ described so vividly by Shri Arun Shourie.

“Mr Jamnadas Mehta (Jamnadas Mehta was an important office bearer of the Indian Federation of Labour to whom Mr. Shourie refers in this book) was not right when he said that Rs 13,000/- per month were not given to the Indian Federation of Labour and that he was not aware of it. I was working in our Delhi office at that time and I found a letter in our record signed by Mr Jamanadas Mehta which showed that he was aware of the grant of Rs. 13,000/- per month from the beginning and approved of the acceptance of the grant. I published a photocopy of the letter in the daily Vanguard which was produced and edited in Delhi by my friend the late Ram Singh. On Dr Ambedkar’s request I sent him a copy of the issue which reproduced Mr. Jamnadas Mehta’s letter. Mr. Jamnadas Mehta never denied his signature.

“Turning to other amount of Rs 13,000/- per month sent by the Government to the manager of the Weekly Independent India, which was then published from Delhi and was edited by M.N. Roy from Dehradun, I know the essential facts of the case because my wife worked as manager of Independent India. The Government of India had sent us a list of persons sot whom complimentary amounted to Rs 13,000/- per month. Independent India was always a non-profit journal. More subscribers did not imply any profit to the journal or to those who produced it. The journal had started much before the war (in April 1937) and continued after the Government subscription terminated. It is still being produced since about 1949 it was called The Radical Humanist and it became a monthly journal from April 1970”12.

Roy believed like Ambedkar that unless the Congress fought for a social revolution there would be no benefit of this so called political freedom. In his manifesto for the RPIWC, (Revolutionary Party of Indian Working Class) Roy expressed his deep resentment over Congress’s political resolution of political freedom. “The Congress failed to develop the popular anti-imperialist forces because its ideal of swaraj, even if this is interpreted as complete independence, does not represent the social revolution which is a historic necessity as the overthrow of imperialism is necessary as a prelude to the long delayed social revolution, (the) political freedom of India will be conquered by the forces making social revolution. The goal of national freedom abstracted from a comprehensive programme of social revolution will never be realizes. The congress has been endeavoring to lead the masses towards this goal of simple political freedom”13.

Emphasizing the need to work for social freedom first, Roy exhorted his followers: “Unless you are ready to carry though the historical necessary social revolution political freedom will never be attained. The oppressed and exploited masses being the forces irreconcilably antagonistic to imperialist domination the struggle for national freedom must coincide with the struggle for the social emancipation of toiling masses. A party that does not consciously stand for the welfare of the masses against the privilege of the upper classes and carry on incessant struggle to promote the welfare, is incapable of leading the movement for the national freedom to victory. The future of the nation as a whole will have precedence over the present fortunate few who constitute a vociferous minority of the nation. No nation can prosper and progress as long as the productive masses constituting its overwhelming majority languish in economic bankruptcy, social stagnation, intellectual backwardness and culture reaction”14. What Roy said long ago characterize the present situation, in all details, in our independent India today.

Roy was among those very few intellectuals who had the courage to disown the Vendanta theory as well as Karma philosophy of the Gita which violate the basic human rights. He studied the Lokayat Darshan of Indian philosophy and many other schools of Indian philosophy such as Charvak, Buddhism, Jainism etc. to put fourth his view points vigorously and in a forthright manner, at a time when people in the Congress party were hell-bent on communalizing the national movement and nationalizing the Hindu festivals. He had the courage to speak out and make himself unpopular.

I will conclude my paper with one more quotation from Roy’s writings. Roy, while narrating an ancient story, writes: “Barahmihir, for example, describes a conversation between two men in a sad plight. One voicing the spirit of revolt, naturally endangered by intolerable oppression says, ‘we are suffering for the ill-doings of our king.’ There upon, the not true; our suffering is the fruit of our own actions of past life.’ The doctrine of Karma, the belief in the transmigration of soul, here stands in its real significance. These doctrines of ‘spiritualist’ philosophy were expounded by the rishis of old with the object of making the masses feel themselves responsible for their misery and thus be reconciled to. The attitude of the second man exonerated the oppressor from all responsibility, and the established social order is guaranteed against the danger of a threating popular revolt”15. Hindutvavadis are today alarmed by the prospect of a revolt, hence some of their “theoreticians” have come down heavily on Ambedkar and his Dalit followers and on M.N. Roy.

Roy’s philosophy is of immense importance today at a time when the fascist forces of Hindutva are intoxicated by the heady wine, cultural nationalism. While Ambedkar, Buddha and Gandhi have become “pratah Smaraniya” for the Sangh Parivar-a clever way to assimilate their ideologies-in actual fact it is to misrepresent their ideologies.

It has been a great loss for the country that intellectual giants like Roy, Periyar and Ambedkar could not come to one platform and lead India towards the much awaited social revolution. It is time those of us who are working for the social revolution, initiate a dialogue among the followers of various revolutionaries for a better understanding of our social movements of the past and need for a common cause in the future, otherwise the political independence of India will have no meaning without realization of human rights of millions of the down trodden-the Dalits including the Adivasis and the Muslim minority, and now the Christian minority and women. (This is a revised version of my paper presented before the Seminar on human rights organized by Indian Social Institute, New Delhi on November 13th and 14th 1998).

1 Ahir D.C., The Legacy of Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi. Page:21-22
2 ibid. chapter ‘Pilgrimage to Buddhism’ Page 154
3 “Materialism” in Selected Works of M.N.Roy, volume IV: 1932-1936, Oxford University Press, 1997,
edited by Sibnarayan Ray, Page 326.
4 Ibid. Page 343
5 ibid. Page 335
6 Fascism: Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice, in Volume IV, Selected Works of M.N. Roy, Page 432-
433
7 New Orientation, by Ajanta Publications, New Delhi, 1981
8 Romain Rolland – Gandhi Correspondence, Publication Divisions, Ministry of Broadcasting, New Delhi, Second Edition, 1990, Page 241.
9 Selected Works of M.N. Roy, Volume IV: 1932-1936, Oxford University Press, 1997, Edited by
Sibnarayan Ray, Chapter Fascism: Page 437
10 ibid under chapter “The Historical Role of Islam”, Page 400
11 ibid Page 401
12 Justice V.M.Tarkunde’s letter to the Editor of Asian Age (taken from Mr. Tarkunde’s personal
correspondence).
13 ibid. Page 215 under chapter “Manifesto of the RPIWC’.
14 ibid. Page 220 under chapter “Manifesto of RPIWC”.
15 ibid. “Crime and Karma”, in selected works of M.N. Roy, Page: 516-517