J.B.H. Wadia

                                                                                                                                                                      B.S. Sidhu

J.B.H. Wadia, well-known film maker of Wadia Movietone fame, had the privilege of playing host to M.N. Roy and his wife, Ellen Roy, whenever they visited Bombay from 1938 to 1954. Wadia was initially attracted to Roy for his political exploits within India and abroad but on closer contact he found that Roy not only had a rare tenacity of will to pursue political causes which he considered worthwhile but also had a rare intellect devoted to philosophical concerns for the social emancipation of mankind. So, the hospitality initially offered chivalrously to an unfamiliar couple, though held in esteem, later resulted in a devoted friendship and life-long association. Wadia’s book** in a sense redeems a debt of gratitude which its author owes to Roy, who was his guide, friend and philosopher. Though limited in scope it vividly shows the human aspect of Roy’s many-sided personality. In fact, whatever one imbibes from life is reflected ultimately in one’s relations with men and women with whom one shares one’s joys and sorrows, one’s triumphs and failures. Therefore, the type of life Roy lived should be indicative of Roy’s concept of an ideal life pattern of socially emancipated men. Wadia discovered in Roy “The most representative man of our 20th century Indian renaissance, barring none.”

Roy was an uncompromising rationalist. At no stage did he mortgage his thinking to anyone. He was ever the eternal questioner and as such offended those who accepted the facile assumptions of civilisation. He was totally uninhibited as is evident from his attitude to drinks. It was not for Roy to do any such thing which was against the unreasonable conventional norms with a sense of guilt. In one of his Letters from Jail to his wife Ellen he wrote, “It is unfair to be mortifying with the flesh with coarse woollen texture and not have a Benedictine and Chartreuse Verti to drink as the jolly old monks used to.” In another letter he approvingly referred to Eduard Fuch’s view that Marx, Mehring, and Thalheimer were intellectually great because they knew the taste of good wine. This very openness he brought to bear to his political conduct. He was a rationalist and an atheist.  He considered religious rituals, taboos and prayers an impediment to social progress. As such he was uncompromisingly opposed to bringing religion in politics. Therefore, while being a Congressman he refused to attend the evening prayer meetings of Gandhi at Faizpur Conference of the Indian National Congress in 1937. He maintained unequivocally that prayers had no place in the secular political programme of the Congress. This open defiance must have annoyed Gandhi and cost Roy heavily in political terms. That it would be so Roy could not have been unaware of, but he did not submit his intellectual integrity to expediency.

Roy could be tolerant to human failings. Even when he knew others to be in the wrong from the rationalist viewpoint, he had all the compassion for them. He could even comfort them without caring to insist on removing their ignorance, if it did not do damage to a cause. Once, in Germany, Roy treated an Indian nationalist who was fond of drinks and meat to a meal of beef steaks. The nationalist enjoyed the meal but was awfully unhappy when he came to know that he had eaten the meat of a cow, which was prohibited in Hindu scriptures. “I have committed a heinous sin,” said his guest, “How shall I go to Swarga? My spirit will rot in Narka.” Roy consoled the nationalist by telling him that he could still go to Swarga and nothing much wrong had happened because “our Shastras have enjoined that we should not eat the flesh of Indian cows and what you have eaten is the flesh of a foreign cow,” This attitude was typical of Roy’s tolerance in private life. When someone questioned Roy if his above explanation was not in contradicti9on to his anti-God attitude, he clarified: “Who am I to deprive a man of his crutches if he cannot walk without them?” So,, while he himself was a rationalist, he could sympathise with the need of an individual to adhere to his religious beliefs if they were the only avenue open to him for psychological relief.

In personal relations Roy was perfectly humane and treated his friends and comrades with utmost affection and respect. He never placed himself at a higher level because of his political standing or intellectual attainments. Wadia’s account of a number of incidents brings out this trait in Roy, though he hardly ever became sentimental in the presence of his friends and expressed his affection for them in a rather prosaic manner. When Roy came to know that Wadia’s son Vince, aged 10 years, had suffered a concussion in the brain while playing cricket, he immediately posted a handwritten letter to Wadia and his wife expressing his own and Ellen’s concern for Vinci’s health. And when he was informed that the boy was out of danger Roy wrote again expressing their relief to receive the glad news. Once when G.D. Parikh was in Dehra Dun, Roy found him struggling with the strap of his holdall. He got up from his desk, rushed up immediately put his foot on the holdall and fixed the strap firmly. Though a small incident, it speaks volumes of the greatness of Roy, the man. This touch of affection was not limited to the everyday problems of his comrades; it got extended to save them from their political predicaments as well. After resigning from the President-ship of the Indian National Congress in 1939, Subhas Bose took the initiative to form the Left Consolidation Committee set up by all Leftist groups which were supposed to work outside the Congress. in a meeting of the League of Radical Congressmen held in Poona the proposal to associate with Subhas was approved. And V.B. Karnik who was most enthusiastic about it took upon himself the task of attending the meeting of the Left consolidation committee. Initially Roy tried to dissuade Subhas from that venture because he felt sure that such a step would invite for Subhas expulsion from the Congress (which ultimately happened). But when Subhas did not heed his advice, and decided to go ahead with the formation of the Committee then Roy advised Karnik and other comrades of the League of Radical Congressmen not to participate in the formation of that Committee, because at that stage according to his judgement it was not good for leftists to come out of the Congress. However, against Roy’s advice Karnik attended the meeting of the Left Consolidation Committee at Gowasji Patel Hall, Bombay, on July 9, 1939. And the reaction of Roy to that defiance of him by Karnik is instructive. Soon after July 9 Roy came all the way from Western Ghats, where he was staying at that time, to the plains of Bombay in the grip of torrential July rains. When Wadia enquired from him the purpose of his surprise visit in that bad weather, he replied, “I thought Karnik needed me by his side,” and quipped, “Well if the mountain does not come to Mohmed, Mohmed must go to the mountain.” Probably, more than arguments this gesture on the part of Roy must have persuaded Karnik to veer round to Roy’s point of view and an unfortunate parting of ways was avoided.

Gifted with pristine memory and a rare intellect Roy acquired not only masterly understanding of politics, economics and philosophy but also made original contribution to all these fields of knowledge. In spite of his hectic life he found time to study the works of literary masters of various European languages. He appreciated western art and culture, and enjoyed listening to classical western music and even seeing films. He was equally fond of Bengali literature and Indian foods; he was a cosmopolitan in the true sense of the term; a man who had no hesitation in picking up all that was good, true and beautiful from all climes and cultures. He was connoisseur of all that is good in life. He was a man of this world, for whom enjoying life on earth was the supreme end of human existence. That is why he could get lost in fun whenever possible with the esteem of a child. On the eves of Christmas and New Year Roy enjoyed the revelry leaving aside his philosophical concerns. He believed that Christian message of “Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Mankind” transcended its narrowly religious connotations and “sanctified superstition”. He wanted to open the avenues of enjoying life for all mankind and o this end were devoted all his political and philosophical concerns.

No wonder Roy’s attitude to life and living was diametrically opposite to that of Gandhi. Gandhi as he rightly quipped “belonged to middle ages” and was a captive of the past”. On the contrary Roy was a man who looked ahead and wanted to usher in a 20th century renaissance. In his flights of fancy Wadia forgets being a rationalist when he remarks: “It is an irony worthy of the Greek classical tragedy that despite a common focal point in morality the two great men of destiny could not join hands.” Gandhi derived his moral code from religious orthodoxy while for Roy being moral meant respecting human values which are based on the rational nature of man (man being part of law-governed monistic nature). Renaissance of Roy’s concept can flourish only when irrational superstitious beliefs which Gandhi supported are clearly recognised as such. At the rational plane there was nothing common between the two great men. For Gandhi social emancipation of mankind depended just on rediscovering and acting upon the glorious revelations already made in the religious scriptures and no new discoveries were required to be made. For Roy social emancipation was possible only after getting rid of the old orthodoxy and reshaping the world order on the basis of discoveries made and yet to be made by modern science.

It was Roy’s recognition of ever-expanding areas of knowledge and the need to accept the limitation of any viewpoint, because any thesis at best could be taken to be true only until it was discovered to be false, that made him deplore deification of Marx, which of course Marx himself never desired.1  Roy’s remark: “Even Marxism has been transformed into some kind of religion,” must have been made in anguish on observing the functioning of communist parties rather than in derision for Marxist philosophy, the fountain springs of which are the same as those of radical humanism.2 And being true to his rationalist conviction Roy never considered himself infallible, much less to expect any deification of himself. Wadia informs us that the well-known twenty two theses of Radical Humanism are originally propounded by Roy were only eighteen and the other four were added later on discussion with comrades V.M. Tarkunde, Philip Spratt, G.D. Parikh (and Sibnarayan Ray). Therefore it would be perfectly in tradition if they are further altered, amended or changed as and when it is felt rational to do so in the light of new experience or knowledge. This limitation of human knowledge and perception can be well illustrated from Roy’s life experience.

Roy started his political life by becoming a terrorist in order to help India gain freedom from foreign rule. At that stage of his understanding any means were good for helping his country gain freedom. He even toyed with the idea of collaborating with German militarists during the initial stages of the First World War basing his strategy on the principle, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. But very soon after having seen militarists at work and reading Marx he concluded that Marxism alone could be the basis for true freedom for all mankind. Therefore, freedom of India became for him a part of a bigger process; freedom of all mankind from existing injustices. He started working with that end in view; went to Mexico to organise the first Communist Party outside Europe, went to China to help Communists there, worked in the Kremlin on the executive of the Communist International, till he discovered that emancipation of mankind through the work of communist parties was also an illusion. He observed that Marxism was being distorted beyond recognition. The call of the Communist Manifesto to workers of the world to rise in revolt to throw the existing bourgeois regimes in the dust-bin of history and create a new world order “in which the free development of each in the condition for the free development of all,”3 had become an empty slogan. Then onwards his perceptive mind started a search of new vistas on his voyage of discovery to his goal of helping create an ideal society of free and equal men and women. On return to India he was put in Jail by the British Government. He remained in jail from 1931 to 1936. He used that time to read, contemplate and write. In 1937 he joined Indian National Congress. and when he found that the Congress leaders for expediency’s sake4 were not cooperating with the Britishers to defeat fascists who were as much a danger to India as to Britain, and could even jeopardise the freedom movement in the entire world, he had no hesitation in waling out of the Congress. he founded his own political instrument the Radical Democratic Party in 1940. Absolutely sure of India gaining freedom once the war was over he got busy with preparing his cherished models of politi9co-economic framework for free India. He himself wrote the text of Draft Constitution of Free India and his esteemed colleagues prepared the People’s Plan for Economic Development of India (1944). But then to his dismay the post war elections in India (1945-46) made his party politically irrelevant. He came to realise that because of the prevailing ignorance it was not possible for a rational political stance to succeed; that a 20th century cultural renaissance ushering in humanist revolution was a condition prior to any possibility of creating a genuine social-democratic set-up pervading all the institutions of free India. Hence his recommendation and acceptance by his colleagues of the dissolution of the Radical Democratic Party in 1948. After that till he breathed his last he had been busy in his educative role as a radical humanist missionary. This tradition of continuing search of the means of social emancipation of mankind and positive action on the basis of existing understanding must continue and it ought not to end where Roy had left it.

A few incidents mentioned in Wadia’s book throw some light on a recent controversy of The Radical Humanist about the dissolution of the Radical Democratic Party in 1948. While the campaign for 1945-46 elections was on, Roy reportedly told his colleagues more than once: “If only eight or ten or our friends were to find their feet planted in New Delhi I will feel satisfied.” Evidently not one of his comrades succeeding must have convinced Roy that time for rational politics had not yet arrived. In the meanwhile a movement for the education of the masses must intercede. The same strain is again evident when Roy reportedly told D.B. Karnik, “Do you know, D.B., I have played with the lives of my comrades so far in the hope that we would succeed in our aims on a modest scale, at least. But now that I have realised that it is not possible within the ambit of active party politics, I do not desire to do so any more.” So there is no inherent contradiction between the aims of the Radical Humanist Movement launched in 1948 and the Radical Democratic Party dissolved in 1948.

In his book Wadia has raised and himself answered many questions about Roy’s personality. Whether Roy was impatient, arrogant, egoist and uncompromising etc. Wadia had the benefit of very close association with Roy and we can take him on his word in evaluating these traits. But the question ‘was Roy a failure?’ is of another genre. It involves assessment of all the work which Roy did in his life time, including an assessment of his philosophical insights. This is a stupendous task and is, in our view, beyond the scope of Wadia’s book. To the extent, however, Roy had left behind a legacy of ideas which would continue to guide men and women of scientific temper for a long time Roy, surely, did succeed. Wadia had no doubt tried to make an objective, impartial study of his subject but here and there some bias of his own has crept in: (1) He admires Roy’s appreciation of good qualities in M.K. Gandhi and Sardar Patel in spite of having basic differences with them but when Roy does the same liberal appreciation of Stalin it makes Wadia comment, “When Stalin died Roy paid him a rather biased tribute … Roy slurred over the innumerable horrifying deeds of the ruthless Russian dictator and tried to exonerate him as a creation of circumstances.” (2) There is no purpose served, except revealing his dislike of Gandhi, in quoting Sarojini Naidu as having reportedly said, “It takes Birla’s millions of rupees to keep Mahatma Gandhi poor.” (3) Roy had expelled Tayab Shaikh from the R.D.P. in 1942. Wadia informs us that he has not understood till this day why Roy did such a thing to a dear comrade? He should have better questioned Roy about it then. He has unwittingly cast an aspersion on the functioning of the R.D.P. What were other members of the party doing? Also, at places where Wadia has tried to delve a little deeply in philosophy of Royist politics his writing becomes confused, i.e., “But once he (Roy) was convinced that it (Economic Determination of Marx) had become unserviceable, in the light of historical development, he refuted it with all the strength of his intellect. He submitted that a rational political theory becomes a sham if it is not tied up with a rational moral practice. It was but natural that Roy should extend his rationale to all fields of human activity. It is the totality of personality in every individual in society, which alone will enable man, as a result of co-operative effort to reach the desired goal – the ultimate co-operative commonwealth of the world.” Whatever this statement means we do not get to know. The book could have been better edited.

Notwithstanding the above criticisms Wadia’s book, M.N. Roy – The Man is a timely addition to the recently growing literature on Roy’s life and work. Importance of Roy’s contribution to human knowledge is going to become increasingly relevant with the passage of time, more so in India where in the name of democracy an ersatz politico-economic structure is corroding all human values. Roy’s life could well be a model for rationalists in the mould of which they can cast their own lives. We wish that the book was priced lower so that it could be within the purchasing capacity of larger number of persons unless the unstated purpose of keeping a high price is to use the profit for some other Royist causes urgently in need of money.

*Dr. Sidhu teaches Economics at Shivaji College, Delhi University.

** M.N. Roy – The Man by J.B.H. Wadia, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, pp. 121, Rs. 50/-

                                                         Notes and References:

 

  1. It is on record that Marx could not tolerate mechanistic formulation of his views by his followers and quipped: “I am not a Marxist.”
  2. On publication of Roy’s New Humanism when Wadia proposed a toast saying, “To the end of the century of Communist Manifesto and the beginning of the century of Humanist Manifesto;” Wadia informs us that “Roy appreciated the sentiment but hastened to add that it was necessary to differentiate between the Communist politics and humanist philosophy of Marx.” See also my article “Marx, Roy and the Present Times”, Radical Humanist, January, 1983.
  3. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 105.
  4. Congress leadership was of the view that since Britishers were in difficulties on the war front, they could be made to concede immediate freedom or some definite promise of freedom in exchange of support from India to their war effort.

Published in The Radical Humanist, March, 1984.

+++