Radical Humanism of m. n. Roy b. k. Mahakul

8/11/2019 Radical Humanism of m. n. Roy b. k. Mahakul

1/13

Indian Political Science ssociation

RADICAL HUMANISM OF M. N. ROYAuthor(s): B. K. MahakulSource: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July-Sept., 2005), pp. 607-618Published by: Indian Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856152.

Accessed: 07/05/2014 05:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indian Political Science Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Indian Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Wed, 7 May 2014 05:13:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41856152?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41856152?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipsa


2/13

The Indian Journal f Political cience

Vol.

LXVI,

No.

3,

July-Sept.,

005

RADICAL

HUMANISM

OF M.

N.

ROY

B

K

Mahakul

Manalyendra

ath

oy

s a

political

hinker

f

Modern

ndias

a Radical

umanist,

y

isowning

arxism.n

volving

heo-

cial

hilosophyf

Radical

umanism,

e

onsiders

imself

s

humanistnd ot

n rthodoxarxist,

f

ntegrated

adical-

ism

ith

cientific

umanismrNew

umanism.is

olitical

views

re

ounded

n easonnd

morality

nd

ot

n

ny ogma.

Hebelievedhathe risisfmodemivilizationsdue o he

lack

f

ntegrated

iew

f

uman

ature.

ccording

o

M.N.Roy,

in

ny evolutionary

ocial

hilosophy

overeignty

f

manmust

be

recognized.

anmustetaken

s a moral

ntity

ndnot

merely

biological

ne.

oy

as

ritical

f

heMarxianon-

cepts

f

conomic

eterminism,

ictatorship

f

he

roletariat,

dialectal

aterialism,

nd

urplus

alue.

ccording

o

him,

he

economic

tructure

f

he

ociety

hould

e o

planned

hat

t

would

romotereedom

nd

well-being

f

hendividual.

e

asserts

hat

he ask

f

very

ighter

or

new umanistic

orld

would

e

o

make

very

ndividualonscious

f

is nnate

a-

tionality.

hus

oy

tresses

hat either

apitalism

or arlia

mentaiy

ystem

an

olve he

roblemsf

mankind.

ew u-

manismsthenlylternative,hicheconcilesocialrgani-

zation

nd

ndividual

reedom.

is

hilosophy

f

Radical u-

manism

s onsidered

s

his

most

mportant

ontribution,

hich

mayrovideor

strong

oundation

o

ndian

emocracy.

Manabendra

ath

Roy,

he hinker

nd

ntellectual,

assed

hrough

three

tages.

n

the

irst

tage,

e

was

a

national

evolutionary

ngaged

n

smuggling

rms

nd

money

or

he

evolutionary

ovement

n

Bengal.

n

the econd

tage,

e

was a Marxist

ctive

nCommunist

ovement.

n

the

third

nd final

tage,

he

emerged

s a

Radical

Humanist,

y

disowning

Marxism s an ntellectual,.N.Roy ad zest or ew deas.Heaccepted

Marxism

n 1919

while

n

Mexico,

buthe

did notremain

Marxist.

n

1

28,

Roydeveloped

erious ifferences

ith he ommunist

nternational;

inwhich

as member

ince 918

nd

breaking

ff

is

elations

ereached

India.

Since that

ime,

e

developed

new

Social

Philosophy

nown s

Radical

Humanism.

n

evolving

the social

philosophy

f

Radical

Humanism,

oy

was

nfluenced

y

different

hinkersike

Marx,Hobbes,

Hegel,

nd Lenin

tc.

Roy

attempted

o

unite he ationaldeas

of these

different

hinkers,

hichwere

iverse

ven

onflicting

tands

f

hought;

inonePhilosophicalystem.n 1940Roybegan journeywayfrom

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

The IndianJournal f Political cience 608

Marxism owards

adicalism.

Humanism-he

Concept-

he term umanism

as

beenderived rom

he

Latinword Humanus'

meaning system

f

thought

rimarily

oncerned

with uman

eing

nd with uman

ffairs

n

general.

herehavebeen

several chools f

humanism,

articularly

rench nd

German

chools,

which

ave

ontributeduch

n

ts

development

n

history.

owever,

ll

of

them ave

one common

hing

hat,

hey

ttach

rimary

mportance

o

man.Thehumanistsssert hatmanbynatures goodandcapableof

indefinite

dvances owards

erfection.

M.N.Roy

onsidered

imselfs a

Radical nd

not

n

orthodox

n

between 940 to

1947.

Later,

e

changed

rom

adicalism o

whathe

called

ntegral

cientific

umanismrNew

Humanism.n

August

947 n

the

manifestof New

Humanism,

oy

explained

is

political

iews s

being

ounded n

reason nd

morality

nd not n

anydogma.

Roy

aid:

Most

revolutionaryolitical ractice

e

guided y

theJesuitic

ictum-

the ndJustifieshemeans. hefinalanctionfrevolutioneingtsmoral

appeal-

he

ppeal

for

ocial

ustice- ogically

he

nswer o the

atter

question

must

e

in he

negative.

t s

very

oubtful

f

moral

bjects

an

ever

be

attained

y

mmoral

means. n

critical

movements,

hen

arger

issues are

involved nd

greater hings

re at

stake,

ome

temporary

compromise

n

behaviour

may

be

permissible.

ut when

practices

repugnant

o

thical

rinciples

nd

raditionaluman

alues re

tabilized

as

the

permanent

eaturesf

the

evolutionaryegime,

hemeans

efeat

the

nd.

Therefore,

ommunistolitical

ractice

as

not

aken

he

world,

not ven he

working

lass,

nywhere

ear neworder ffreedomnd

social

ustice.

On

the

contrary,

t

has

plunged

he

rmy

f

revolution-

Proletarians

well s

non-proletarian

n

n

ntellectual

onfusion,

piritual;

chaos,

motional

rustration,

nd a

general

emoralization

Roy

1947:

34

-37).

Thesewords

were

eminiscentf

Gandhiwho

Roy

had

denounced

for

he

reater

art

fhis ife.

M.N.Roy

has

viewed;

history

annotbe

considered

merely

successionf

vents.t

ontainshe ecords f

man's

truggle

or

reedom.

Inthe

ast

man itherubmittedo the orces f

nature rto a

blind

aith



4/13

Radical Humanism f M. N. Roy 609

in he xistencef

supernatural

gency

ike

God

finding

imself

elpless

against

he orces fnature

e wanted eliverance

nd

magined

od for

absolute

ependence

nd subordination.s a

result f several

hundred

years

f

struggle

an

ultimately

ucceeded

n

casting

ff

he llusion f

his

relation

ith od.

Renaissance

n

Europe

was a

revolt

f

man

gainst

the

uthoritarianismf

religion.

iberated rom he

yranny

f

theology

and

the

prejudices

f

supernaturalism,

ankind

marched owardswhat

we callmodernivilization.nsuch situationoyfeltheneed f new

philosophy

o

usher

n

the

ge

of man thad to

be a

primarily

oncerned

with

human

ife,

philosophy

which

would set human

pirit

ree,

philosophy

which

would

explain

all the

phenomena

f nature nd

experiences

fhuman

ifewithout

ny

eferenceo

supernaturalowers-

a

philosophy

ith social

purpose.

or

Roy,

he

nd

f

humanistradition

in hewake fmodernization

hrough

echanizationas

tragedy aking

the start

f a decend civilization

prevailing

hen.

Giving

his

own

appreciationf he ituation .N.Roy aid, Theeclipse f hehumanist

tradition

s the ourse f his

egeneration

nd

decay.

Modern ivilization

stood t the

headof the

declining lane

of

decay

hemovementt

broke

away

from

raditionf

humanism-subordinatedan to the

nstitutions

(Roy

1952:269).

Roy's

NewHumanism as

cosmopolitan

noutlook.tcould hink

not

n terms f the

nation r a class but

only

n terms f man.

Such

a

conception

ouldbe the oundation

fNew

Humanism,ew,

ecause

t

s

Humanism

nriched,

einforced

nd

elaborated

y

scientific

nowledge

and social

experience ained

uring

he enturies

f

modern

ivilization

(Royl947:

34).

His

New

Humanism

s

pledged

to the

ideal of a

commonwealth

nd

fraternity

f freeman.

He believed that a

commonwealth

f

morally

nd

spiritually

iberated

ndividual s the

fundamental

equirement

or

he ealizationf better

ndhealthier

ociety.

Such

humanistic

ociety

would e a

spiritual

ommunity

ot imited

y

the oundaries

f

national tates-

apitalist,

ascist,

r

of

any

ther ind.



5/13

The IndianJournal fPolitical cience 610

As a Radical

Humanist,

oy's approach

was ndividualistic.an

must e taken s a

moral

ntity

nd

not

merely

biological

ne. Man s

moral ecausehe

s

rational. he

universe ust e taken s a

moral rder

governed

y

aws

nherent

n tself. he ndividual ust ot e

subordinated

either o

a nation r

to

a class.

Roy

rejected

oththe

nationalism

f

Congressmen

nd

he

heory

f lass

truggle

f he

Communists.

e said:

Radicalism hinks

n terms

eitherfnation or f

class;

ts oncerns

man, tconceives reedoms freedomfthe ndividual Roy1947:36).

The

individual

hould

not ose his

dentity

n the

collective

go

of the

nation r

of the lass.

The

Nation-State,

n

practice,

makesno

greater

concession

othe

oncept

f ndividualreedomhan he

lass-state

f he

Communists,

ndalso of

the ocialists. ndno modern

emocratic

tate

has

yet utgrown

ationalistollectivism

Roy,

1952).

M.N.Roy

was

impressed y

the

philosophy

f Karl

Marx

n

the

beginning

f

his

political

areer.

e

accepted

Marxism ecause e

believed

thatMarxwas a humanist

nd that

e

was

deeply

oncerned

boutman.

Humanism

n Marx

had

strong

ttractionor

Roy.

However, 940,

s

a

Radical

Humanist,

oy

ceased

to

believe

n

theMarxian

heory

f class

struggle.

ociety

ouldnot

urvive

ithoutomekind f ocial

cohesive

force

nd,

ccordingly

lass

struggle

ouldnotbe

the

only ealityRoy

1947).

Linkedwith his

heory

f social

cohesiveness

oy's emphasis

wason the

ole

f hemiddle

lass s the

most

rogressive

lass

nmodern

society.

Whereas

n

Marxian

heory

he

working

lass hasa

special lace,

in ater ormulationsf

Roy

themiddle lass had a

special

tatus.

oy

emphasized

he ndividualndnot he

lass,

butwhen e

spoke

n

terms

of lasseshe

gavepride lace

o he

middle lass nd

not

o

he

roletariat,

whom

Roy

characterized

s

themost

ackward tratumf

society

Roy

1952).

Roy recognized

he

ontributionf Marx n

giving

new social

philosophy,

ut

e

rejectednterpretation

f

Marxism

y

he

ontemporary

Communists.ommunismegan s a movementor he alvation fthe



6/13

Radical Humanism fM. N.Roy 611

world

ortured

nd ormented

y apitalist

xploitation

ut

ately

s

causing

grave

misgivings

ven

mong

he

rogressive

orces f he

modern orld.

According

o

Roy,

The abolition

f

private roperty,

tate

wnership

f

the

means f

production

nd

planned

conomy

o not

y

hemselves

nd

exploitation

f abour

nor

ead to

an

equal

distributionf wealth

Roy

1

52:3

1

.

To

Roy,

ictatorship

f

ny

kind

was nconsistent

ith

he

deal

for

reedom. he

claim fCommunists

hat roletarian

ictatorship

ith

planned conomyrings reatestoodofthegreatestumber as been

tested nd

proved

wrong.

M.N.Roy

was critical

of the Marxian

concept

of economic

determinism.

conomicdeterminism

annot e the

ocial

philosophy,

which

s

required

o ead

civilizedmankind

utof

the

resent

risis.

Roy

viewed

hat,

we

mustook

beyond

he

deceptive

deal

of

Communism

f

the

hreatened

atastrophe

s tobe

avoided.

We must avefaith

nhuman

ingenuity

nd

the reativeness

f the

human

mind,

which re farfrom

being

xhausted ,

Roy,

961

1

).

He

contended

hat he new ocial rder

must

ombine

lanning

ith reedom

nd should e

led

by

the

deal

of

collective

welfare

nd

progress .

Roy

denounced

he heoriesf lass

truggle

nd f he

ictatorship

of

theProletariat.

e wanted

o

emphasize

he

ndividual ore han he

class,

whethertbe the

working

lass

or

the

middle lass.

Roy nvisaged

the onflictf he

resent

ge

as between

otalitarianism

nd

democracy,

betweenhe ll-devouring-collectivego-nationr lass nd hendividual

struggling

or reedom

Roy

1947:33)

Roy

sserted

hat

Marxian

mphasis

on revolution

nd on the

dictatorship

f

the Proletariat ould ead

to

totalitarianism.

evolutionsould

not

bring

boutmiracles.

oy

did not

discard

heword revolution'

n

total.

As

a Radical

Humanist,

oy

ame

to believe

that revolutionhouldbe

brought

bout

not

through

lass

struggle

r

armed iolence ut

hrough

ducation.

ducation

ot n the

conventionalenseof

reading

nd

writing,

ut

ducation

n the

ultural

sense, f a high egree fgeneral uman evelopment.he method f



7/13

The IndianJournal fPolitical cience 612

education

hat

oy mphasized

or

ringing

bout

heRadical

Humanist

revolution

as not

very

ifferent

rom

he onstitutional

ethod hat he

early

moderates

nd liberals

f

India

had advocated.

Roy's

revolution

involved

o sudden

hange.

His

radical

humanisticevolution as to be

achieved,

ot

by

violence

r

armed

nsurrection,

ut

through

he

low

process

f education.

M.N.Roy

was

very

much ritical

fwestern

emocracy,specially

parliamentary

emocracy.

emocracy,

hich,

means

only

ounting

f

headswhen

eadshave

no freedomo ive

n

dignity

s a mere

eception.

Modern

emocracy

ants o be

in

power

nd

for his

hey

want

o

keep

people

backward.Under

parliamentary

ystem

ntelligence,ntegrity,

wisdom,

moral

xcellence o

not ount

ormuch.Yet these

re human

virtues. nless

hese

nfluence

olitical

rganization,

democratic

ay

of

ife

an never

e realized.

nless

arliamentary

emocracy

s basedon

moral

onscience

f the

majority

n

power

t cannot ealize

hedesired

end-greatestood

of the

great

number.

Withno

recognition

f the

importance

f

individuals

n

social

life and freedom

arliamentary

democracy

oes

not

allow

individuals o

participate

n the

regular

functioning

f

political

ife.

With

rivate

monopolies

n themeans

of

production

he

principle

f

equality

s never ealized.As

a

result

f

all

these efectsnder

arliamentary

emocracy

he

overnment

or

he

eople

can

hardly

e

a

government

fthe

eople,

ecause he

majority

n

power

still

ules

y

aw and

not

by

conscience.

n order o

make he ommon

man

ealize

hat e

has a

unique lace

as a

sovereign,

oy

viewed hat

foundation

f

organized

ocal democracies ust e laid.

M.N.Roy

was

very

much

ritical f

Marxism n

the

following

grounds.

As

a Radical

Humanist

oy

did

not

agree

with he economic

interpretation

f

history.

e was

greatly

nfluenced

y

Materialism

nd

theMarxist

heory

hat xistence

etermined

onsciousness,

ut

he

yet

assertedhat he

heory

fthe conomic

nterpretation

f

history

idnot



8/13

Radical Humanism fM. N. Roy 613

follow

necessarily

s a

corollary

rom

materialist

hilosophy

Roy

1951:198).

The

biological truggle

or

xistence ould not be

equated

with he

conomic

mpulse

oearn livelihood.

oy

bserved:

The

point

of

departure

f theMarxist

istoriology

as themistake f

confounding

physical

rge

with conomicmotive

Roy

1952:217).

Roy

viewed he

biologicalurge

of

self-preservationreceded

he

economic

motive f

earning

livelihood,

n the ame manner s

the dea

of

themeans

of

production recededthedevelopment f the means of production

themselves.

an,

prior

o

becoming

homo-economicus

n

search f

economic

menities,

as

guided

ybiological

onsiderations.

Roy

criticized

arxianmaterialisms

dogmatic

ndunscientific.

He

argued

hat

n Marx'sdialectical

materialism,

here s an element f

contradiction.

ialectics s

a

process

f

ogic

or as a method f

enquiry

was

acceptable

o

Roy.

But

ogic

could notbe confused

ith

ntology

andthe awsof

thought

ouldnot e taken

s a

description

f he

rocess

of

naturer he ontentf

reality.

ialectics,

tating

hat hematter oves

through

he riad

ystem

f

thesis,

ntithesisnd

synthesis,

s

essentially

an ideal

system.

n

contrast,

aterialism

s

scientifically

eutral.

oy,

therefore,

ointed

ut hattwas

llogical

o

place

n

ne

quation

ialectics,

whichs

subjective

n

naturend

materialism,

hich s

objective

n

nature.

Roy

critisedMarxianDialectics hat

he

ubject

matter f a branch f

metaphysical

nquiry

was

being

confounded

with he nstrumentf

conducting

hat

nquiry

Roy,

195

1 1

9).

Roy

was believer

n

reason

nd n

enemy

f

radition

nd

heology.

He

criticized

arxism

s

theological.

ince

history

s made

y

he

peration

of the

orces f

production,

ne

may

onclude

hat here

s

very

ittle

hat

mancan

do. He

becomes

slave to the

forces f

production.

oy

was

critical

f

Marx

on

the

ground

hat he atter enied

he

utonomy

nd

sovereignty

fthe ndividual. o

Marx,

he

human atures

malleable,

t

lacks

nything

table

nd

permanent,

nd it s determined

y

economic

forces.ncontrast,oy rgued,heressomethingtable ndpermanent



9/13


10/13

Radical Humanism fM. N. Roy 615

Radicalism onsists

f

ll

positive

lementsfMarxism reed rom

its fallacies

nd clarified

n the

ight

f

greater

cientific

nowledge.

t

was the reaction

gainst

he

contemporary

ocio-cultural

risis.The

manifesto

f Radical Humanismaid down

that,

the

deal of Radical

Democracy

will

be

attained

hrough

he

ollective fforts

f

spiritually

freemen ndwomen nited

n a

political arty

ith

he eterminationf

creating

neworder f freedom.

he

members f the

party

ill

guides,

friendsndphilosophersf he eopleratherhans there ould e rulers

consistent ith he

oal

of

freedom;

olitical

ractice

f

the

arty

ill

be

rational

ndethical

Radicalism s neither

ptimistic

or

pessimistic.

t is rather

synthesis

f activism nd

rationalism.

n

analyzing

he actual human

situation,

adicalism ries o find ut hevarious

ossibilities.

hisholds

out no false

hope

and

without

eingpessimistic

t

seeks to

adjust

he

methodology

f ction o he

ossibility

f vailable esources. adicalism

proposes

common

truggle

gainst

nternationalnti-social lements.

Under

Radicalism

lanning

ouldbe threefold-ike

ocial,

democratic

and conomic.

lanning

n

conomic

phere,ccording

o

Radicalism ust

not

only

ssure

ncreasing

roductivity

nd

bettertandardf

iving

ut

greater pportunity

o ndividualso take nitiatives.

ccording

o

Roy,

the

new

ocial

philosophy

ust tart ith

eviving

aithnman

egarding

his

potentialities. ny

attempt

o

promote

conomic

welfare,

ocial

reconstruction

nd

political iberty

must

begin

withman.

Roy

said,

humanism as

he

nly

lternativeot

nly

ocommunismut o ll

forms

of nstitutionalism

Democracy

anbe established

nly

y

he eassertion

of

he umanistradition.an s

themeasure f

his

world.

eing nherently

rational

e

can

lways

earn rom

xperience.

e

develops

is

ntellectual

faculties

nd

moral alues nhis ffortso ecure betterife or imself

(Roy,

1948).

To

Roy,

The

basic

idea of a new

revolutionary

ocial

philosophy

ust

e

that he

ndividuals

prior

o

society,

nd ndividual

freedom

ust ave

priority

ver ocial

organization

Roy,

1952:284)



11/13

The IndianJournal f Political cience 616

There ccurred

ignificant

iscontinuity

nd

hange

n

M.N.Roy's

career.

His

political

evolution

assed

from

nilitant ationalism

o

Communism

o New Humanism.

n

the nd of his

career

Roy

came to

believe

more

ndmore n ndividualism

nd

iberalism.

nlikemedieval

Indian

aints nd

he

ontemporary

ocial nd

political

eaders,

M.N.Roy

built

p

the

humanist

hilosophy

ith

lesh,

lood ndbrain.

emocracy

wasthe

ase,

while ationalismts

enter,

nd

overeignty

fman

ts

pex.

Roy hus, ave philosophyf ife.Roy's nnereing evoltedgainsthe

disappearance

f

individual reedom.n

the

history

f

modern ndian

thought

any

minenthinkers

rote

n

poverty

n ndia

nd

xploitation

of

he

weak

y

he

trong.

ut

Roy

wasthe irst

an,

who

nalysed

ocial,

political

nd

economic orces

workingpon

ndian

ociety

rom ime o

time.He asserted

hat

he ask f the

fighter

or new

humanistic orld

would e to

make

very

ndividual

onscious fhis

nnate

ationality

nd

to

find

is

unity

with

thers

n

a

Cosmopolitan

ommonwealthf free

men ndwomen. e declared isfaithhat,Man did not ppear n the

earth ut of nowhere. e rose out

of the

background

f the

physical

universe,

hrough

he

ong

rocess

f

biological

volution.

he

Umbilical

Cord

was never roken:

Man,

with

is

mind,

ntelligence,

illremain

n

integral

art

f he

hysical

niverse.he atters a

Cosmos-a

aw-governed

system.

herefore,

an's

being

nd

becoming,

is

emotions, ill,

deas

are lso determined an s

essentially

ational. his

reason

nman s an

echo of

the

harmony

f

theuniverse.

Morality

must e referredack

to

man's nnateationality.he nnateationalityfman sthe nly uarantee

of harmonious

rder,

hichwill

lso be a moral

rder,

ecause

morality

is a rational

unction.

herefore,

he

urpose

f ll

social ndeavourhould

be to

man

increasingly

conscious of

his innate

rationality

(Roy,

1947:34-47)

The

philosophy

f revolution

volved

n the

basis

of thewhole

stock

fhuman

eritage

or

olitical

ction nd

economic econstruction

is

known s

New Humanism. t

stressthat

neither

apitalism

nor

Parliamentaryystem

an olve he

roblems.

ocialism ndCommunism



12/13

Radical Humanism fM. N.Roy 617

reject

he otion ffreedom. ew

Humanisms the

nly

lternative,

hich

reconcilesocial

organization

nd

ndividual

reedom.

ccording

o

Roy,

The

basic dea

of new

revolutionary

ocial

philosophy

ust

e

that he

individuals

prior

o

society,

nd ndividual

reedom ust ave

priority

over ocial

rganization

Roy,

1952:

284).

M.N.

Roy

hadbeen onsidered

as one of the most earned f Modern ndian

writers n

politics

nd

philosophy.

is

philosophy

f Radical Humanisms considered

s the

most mportantontribution,hich ouldprovide or strongasis to

Indian

emocracy.

REFERENCES

:

Appadorai,

: Indian olitical

hinking,

xford

niversity

ress,

New

Delhi,

1971.

Ghosh,

:

Political deas and Movement

n

India,Allied,

New

Delhi,

1975.

Mahadevan,

.P.M

:

Contemporary

ndian

hilosophy,terling,

New

Delhi,

1981.

Mishra,

mesh

History

f

ndian

hilosophy,

ol.

1,

Tirabhuki

Pub., Allahabad,

957.

Narvan,

.S

:

Modern

ndian

Thought,

sia

Publishing

ouse,

Bombay,

954.

Radhakrishnan,. (Ed) : Contemporaryndian hilosophy,llen

&

Unwin, ondon,

958

Raju,

P.T.(Ed)

:

Idealist

Thought

n

India,

Allen and

Unwin,

London,

953.

Ray,

B.G. :

Contemporary

ndian

Philosophers,

Kitabistan,

Allahabad,

947.

Roy,

M.N

Constitutionffreendia-

A

Draft,

adical

Democratic

Party,

elhi,

1946.



13/13

Radical Humanism of m. n. Roy b. k. Mahakul

Documents

Transcript of Radical Humanism of m. n. Roy b. k. Mahakul