Background :-
Integral humanism is a doctrine developed by Deendayal Upadhyaya and adopted by the Jana Sangh in 1965 as its official
doctrine.It is also the official philosophy of the Bharatiya Janata Party.It aims to appeal to broad sections
of Indian society by presenting an indigenous economic model that puts the
human being at center stage.
 |
What basically is
the idea ?
According to
Upadhyaya, the primary concern in India must be to develop an indigenous
economic model that puts the human being at center stage.
Features :-
- It is opposed
to both western capitalist individualism and Marxist
socialism, though welcoming
to western science.
- It
seeks a middle ground between capitalism and socialism, evaluating both
systems on their respective merits, while being critical of their excesses
and alienness.
Four objectives of humankind
Humankind,
according to Upadhyaya, had four hierarchically organized attributes of body, mind, intellect and soul which corresponded to four
universal objectives,
- kama (desire or
satisfaction),
- artha (wealth),
- dharma (moral duties),
- moksha (total liberation or
'salvation').
While none could be ignored, dharma is the 'basic', and moksha the 'ultimate' objective of humankind and society.
Why did he reject
other ideologies ?
He claimed that the
problem with both capitalist and socialist ideologies is that they only consider the needs of body
and mind, and were hence based on the materialist objectives of desire and
wealth.
Rejection of individualism
(First what is individualism .....Individualism is a social theory favouring freedom of action for
individuals over collective or state control.)
- Upadhyaya
rejected social systems in which individualism 'reigned supreme'.
- He
also rejected communism in which individualism was 'crushed' as part of a
'large heartless machine'.
- Society,
according to Upadhyaya, rather than arising from a social contract between
individuals, was fully born at its inception itself as a natural living
organism with a definitive 'national soul' or 'ethos' and its needs of the
social organism paralleled those of the individual.
 |
Source of Integral
Humanism !!!
Advaita Vedanta
- Upadhyaya
claimed that Integral Humanism followed the tradition
of advaita developed by Adi Sankara.
- Non-dualism represented
the unifying principle of every object in the universe, and of which
humankind was a part.
- This,
claimed Upadhyaya, was the essence and contribution of Indian culture.
(In case u don't know what Non Dualism
or Advaita is ? Advaita means nondual or "not two." This oneness is a fundamental
quality of everything. Everything is a part of and made of one nondual
conciousness. Often the question arises, "If it is all one thing, why
don’t I experience it that way?" This is confusing oneness for the appearance
of sameness. Things can appear different without being separate. Just look at
your hand for a moment. Your fingers are all different from each other, but are
they separate? They all arise from the same hand. Similarly, the objects,
animals, plants and people in the world are all definitely different in their
appearance and functioning. But they are all connected at their source—they
come from the same source. This one Being that is behind all life has an
infinite number of different expressions that we experience as different
objects. )
Integral Humanism and Gandhian
Philosophy !
Integral humanism
is almost an exact paraphrase of Gandhi's vision of a future India.
- Both
seek a distinctive path for India,
- both
reject the materialism of
socialism and capitalism alike,
- both
reject the individualism of modern society in favor of a holistic, varna-dharma based
community,
- both
insist upon an infusion of religious and moral values in politics,
- both
seek a culturally authentic mode of modernization that preserves Hindu values.
Integral humanism
contains visions organized around two themes: morality in politics and swadeshi, and small-scale industrialization
in economies, all Gandhian in their
general thematic but distinctly Hindu nationalist. These notions revolve around the basic themes of harmony,
primacy of cultural-national values, and discipline.
Rejection of
Nehruvian Economic polices
- Upadhyaya rejects Nehruvian economic policies
and industrialization on the grounds that they were borrowed
uncritically from the West, in
disregard of the cultural and spiritual heritage of the country.
- There
is a need, according to Upadhyaya, to strike a balance between the Indian
and Western thinking in view of the dynamic nature of the society and the
cultural heritage of the country.
- The
Nehruvian model of economic development, emphasizing the increase of
material wealth through rapid industrialization, promoted consumerism in Indian
society.
- Not only has this ideology of development created social disparities and regional imbalances in economic growth, but it has failed to alleviate
poverty in the country.
- The philosophy of Integral Humanism, like Gandhism, opposes
unbridled consumerism, since such an ideology is alien to Indian
culture.
- This traditional culture stresses putting restraints on
one's desires and advocates contentment rather than ruthless pursuit of
material wealth.
*******************************************************************************************
A deeper investigation into ideas of PANDIT DEEN DAYAL
UPADHYAY's on various aspects
Analysing Deen Dayal on his views on West !!
- While Deendayal Upadhyaya did not advocate a return to some
golden age before the Islamic invasions, since so much had changed in the
intervening period, he was conscious that British rule subtly induced
self-doubt and distaste for Bharat’s own culture and identity in the
educated elite. Yet he sought to differentiate
between Western science and Western ‘way of life’ (the signature tune of the English language media today).
Like the leaders of the 1868 Meiji restoration in Japan, he advocated
adoption of the former rather than the latter, but rejected a narrow
nationalism, a conception in accord with that of Swami Vivekananda.
Deendayal Upadhyaya offers a critique of Western economic and
political and doctrines and questions their suitability for Bharata i.e. India.
He rightly acknowledges the critical advance of democracy alongside nationalism
and socialism and provides a brief sketch of socialist protest against
exploitation and the huge impact of Karl Marx. His principal
difficulty with Western doctrines was the historically demonstrated
contradictions and inconsistencies between their various aspirational
components.
For example, he is conscious that democracy does not overcome
either class conflict or resolve the problem of inequality under capitalism.
Recent work by Thomas Piketty has posed a significant query about the propensity of
capitalist markets to habitually create major economic divides.
Richness in his ideas of SITUATION ( Systems
Approach as we call in PubAD) !!
Deendayal Upadhyaya also argues that the values of the West are
somewhat specific to their circumstances and history and they too, he points
out, have abandoned some certainties. In the case of the insuperable
difficulties faced by Marxism he is prophetic. He sensibly avows about way
forward ideas:
“ones that originated in our midst have to be clarified
and adapted to changed times and those that we take from other societies have
to be adapted to our conditions.”
His ideas on GOVERNANCE !!
- On governance, he considers undue accumulation of political
and economic power as contrary to Dharma, implicitly criticizing communist
regimes and could be regarded as querying the impulses of state-dominated,
democratic socialism as well.
- In general, Upadhyaya associates the preponderance of
power, including economic monopolies, as a source of corrupt and adharmic
misconduct.
His ideas on what is Dharma ?
- Dharma, according to Upadhyaya, is not confined to places
of worship nor is it synonymous with religion.
- He argues it is much broader, the basis for sustaining
society and the universe itself, varying in time and place, depending on
circumstances and need.
His ideas on Federalism !
- Deendayal Upadhyaya is critical of India’s federal
constitution and the enshrining of special privileges based on attributes
like caste, religion, language and province.
- In his opinion, they are contrary to the principles of
Dharma, which enjoin the essential equality and unity of all
citizens.
- He favours a unitary Constitution though with the
devolution of executive and decision-making authority to lower levels of
societal organisation, from regional states to village panchayats.
His ideas on Indian Constitution
- The Indian Constitution adopted a Westminster style
parliamentary system that has conspired to articulate every active and
dormant social, political, linguistic, religious and supposed ethnic
fissure and division in India and magnify them manifold.
- A Presidential system of governance, with appropriate
safeguards and decentralisation, would have mitigated these dangers
His ideas on Religious Freedom and
Secularism
- On the specific issue of religious freedom in the rule of
Dharma Upadhyaya affirms it must be circumscribed when it encroaches on
the freedom of others not of that particular faith.
- The implications for exclusivist monotheisms are clear and
the imperative for decisive action against their aggressive
encroachment.
- He points out secularism in India was defined in opposition
to theocracy and Dharma wrongly assimilated to the latter.
- Of course it has descended into complete intellectual
banality and political absurdity, merely an instrument for justifying
monotheistic aggression.
“There is some misunderstanding arising out of this. Religion
was equated with Dharma and then secular state was meant to be a state without
Dharma. Some said ours is a state (without Dharma), whereas others trying to
find a better sounding word, called it Dharmanikshepa (indifferent to Dharma
state).”
- As
he has argued elsewhere, Dharma is the essential guide to both personal
conduct and governance by the state, without which neither is able to
function effectively or with moral purpose.
“State can only be Dharma Rajya (rule of Dharma) nothing else.
Any other definition will conflict with the reason of its very existence.”
