Tag Archives: Pandit Deendayal

Integral Humanism – Lectures of Deendayal Upadhyaya – 4

Lecture #1: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5281

Lecture #2: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5290

Lecture #3: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5294

24th April 1965

C H A P T E R- 4







Bankruptcy and unemployment were widespread. Thus now-a-days it is most important that what is being produced must be consumed. The Editor of “Organiser”, an English Weekly, had gone to USA for a visit sometime ago. Upon his return, he related an interested instance. There is a factory producing “Potato-peelers”, a device for peeling potatoes. The production of this factory outstripped the demand for the device. The management of the firm faced the problem of finding some way by which people may be induced to buy more potato peelers. They called a meeting of all the salesmen of the firm. Among the suggestions put forward, one was to make the color of the handle similar to that of potato peel. so that along with the peel. the peeler may also be dumped in the garbage, often by mistake. Thus there may be greater demand. Also, the product was offered in a more attractive packing. Now this economic structure is not merely consumption oriented but is clearly leading to destruction. Throw away the old one and buy a new one! Rather than satisfying the need and demand from people. to create fresh demand has become the aim of modern economics.

Supposing that we need not worry about the limited supply of natural resources, there is yet the question of balance in Nature. There is a relationship in different parts of Nature. If from the three sticks standing with mutual support, one is removed, the other two will automatically fall. The present economic system and system of production are fast disturbing this equilibrium of nature. As a result on the one hand new products are manufactured for satisfying ever increasing desires, on the other hand new problem arise every day, threatening the very existence of the entire humanity and civilization. It is essential, therefore, to use up that portion of the available natural resources which the nature will be able to recoup easily. When the fruits are taken, the fruit tree is not injured: it may even be helpful to the tree. However, in the effort to take a greater harvest from the land chemical fertilizers are used which in a few years time render the land altogether infertile. Lakhs of acres of land lie barren in America due to this factor. How long this dance of destruction can go on?


If such human angle inspires the economic system than our thinking on the economic question will undergo through transformation. In the Western economics, whether it is capitalist or socialist, value has the most important and central position. All economic theories centre around value. It may be that the analysis of value is very important from the point of view of the economist but, those social philosophers which are based entirely on value are for incomplete, inhuman and to some extent unethical take. For example, the slogan commonly heard now-a-days “one must earn his bread”. Normally communists use this slogan but even the capitalists are not fundamentally in disagreement with it. If there is any difference between them, it is only as regards who earns and how much. The capitalists consider capital and enterprise as important components of production and hence if they take a major share of profits, they think it is their due. On the other hand, communists believe only labor to be the main factor in production. Therefore they concede major share of production to the laborers. Neither of these ideas is correct. Really speaking, our slogan should be that the one who earns will feed and every person will have enough to eat.. The right to food is a birthright. The ability to earn is a result of education and training. In a society even those who do not earn must have food. The children and the old, the diseased and the invalids, all must be eared for by the society. Even society generally fulfills this responsibility.

The social and cultural progress of mankind ties in the readiness to fulfill this responsibility. The economic system must provide for this task. Economics as a science does not account for this responsibility. A man works not merely for bread alone, but also to shoulder this responsibility. Otherwise those who have had their meals would no longer work. Any economic system must provide for the minimum basic necessities of human life to everyone. Food, clothing and shelter constitute, broadly speaking these basic necessities. Similarly, the society must enable the individual to carry out his obligations to the society by properly educating him. Lastly, in the event of an individual falling a prey to any disease society must arrange for his treatment and maintenance. If a government provides these minimum requirements, then only it is a rule of Dharma. Otherwise, it is a rule of Adharma. Describing the King Dilip, Kalidas has said in Raghuvansha “Being responsible for the maintenance, protection and education of his subjects, he was their true farther. Others were merely instrumental in giving them their birth”. The description of king Bharat after whom our country has been named Bharat, also runs similarly, i.e. “by maintaining and protecting his subjects he was called Bharat.” This is his country, Bharat, if in this country maintenance and protection are not guaranteed, and then the name Bharat is meaningless.

Education – A Social Responsibility



Guarantee of Work



Capital Formation





Whereas a machine ties up only the capital invested in it in past, the unemployed people have to be fed, which is continuous and unending drain on resources, consumed at double the speed. Therefore instead of the usual exhortation “Every worker must get food”, we must think of “Everyone who eats must get work”, as the basis of our economy. No doubt charakha has to be replaced by machines but not necessarily automatic machines everywhere. Full employment must be a primary consideration and then the rest of the six factors suit this.

Man’s Place In The Economy



Socialist System Is A Reaction


State’s Claims on Individual

There is no private property in a socialist society. This removes the problems attendants to the institution of private property. However., the incentive for production and conservation of resources and economy in utilization accompany the institution of private property. There has been no alternative arrangement to preserve these. The State is made supreme and sole authority in all matters. Individual citizen is reduced to mere cog in this giant wheel. There are no provisions to inspire the individual to fulfill his role. As Djilas states, the class of old fashioned exploiters has been eliminated, but a new class of bureaucratic exploiter has come into existence. Karl Marx put forward, in his analysis of history, that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and that communism is a natural and inevitable successor to capitalism.

This concept may be helpful in fostering faith in the communist about their ultimate victory but certainly such a determinist view destroys the urge for reforms and dynamism in man. He is no longer the creator of a new order; he is merely incidental to a predetermined historic process. His task is only to accelerate the process. Therefore, even as he tries to organize workers, he cares little for their welfare, but uses them as mere tools for the revolution. The dialectic materialism of Marx, too, operates only so long as state is note established as supreme after destroying the capitalists. Thereafter, the state puts a stop to the operation of the principle of dialectic materialism. In the name of crushing and counter revolutionaries, the state becomes more and more totalitarian. The day when the state is to wither away yielding place to a stateless society remains a mere dream. In fact according to the Marxist view, to obstruct the process of these antitheses, is itself reactionary. Marx is thus falsified by his own standards. Both these systems – Capitalist as well as Communist, have failed to take account of the Integral Man, his true and complete personality and his aspirations. One considers him a mere selfish being lingering after money, having only one law, the law of fierce competition, in essence the law of the jungle; whereas the other has viewed him as a feeble lifeless cog in the whole scheme of things, regulated by rigid rules, and incapable of any good unless directed. The centralization of power, economic and political, is implied in both. Both, therefore, result in dehumanization of man. Man, the highest creation of God. is losing his own identity. We must re-establish him in his rightful position, being him the realization of his greatness, reawaken his abilities and encourage him to exert for attaining divine heights of his latest personality. This is possible only through a decentralized economy. We want neither capitalism nor socialism. We aim at the progress and happiness of “Man”, the Integral Man. The protagonists of the two systems fight with ‘Man’ on the state. Both of them do not understand man, nor do they care for his interests.

Our Economic System

The Objectives of our Economy should be

  4. To develop suitable machines for Bharatiya conditions (Bharatiya Technology) taking note of the availability and nature of the various factors of production (Seven ‘M’s).

These are a few general directions which we must bear in mind while developing our economy. “Swadeshi” and “Decentralization” are the two words which can briefly summarize the economic policy suitable for the present circumstances. Centralization and monopolization have been the order of the day for all these years, knowingly or unknowingly. The planners have become prisoners of a belief that only large-scale centralized industry is economic and hence without worrying about its ill-effects, or knowingly but helplessly, they have continued in that direction. The same has been the fate of “Swadeshi”. The concept of “Swadeshi” is ridiculed as old fashioned and reactionary. We proudly use foreign articles. We have grown over independent upon foreign aid in everything from thinking, management, capital, methods of production, technology, etc. to even the standards and forms of consumption. This is not the road to progress and development. We shall forget our individuality and become virtual slaves once again. The positive content of “Swadeshi” should be used as the cornerstone of reconstruction of our economy.



We shall be required to produce such institutions as will kindle the spirit of action in us, which will replace the self-centeredness and selfishness by a desire to serve the nation, which will produce not only sympathy towards our brethren, but a sense of affection and oneness with them. Such institutions can truly reflect our ‘Chiti’. ‘Chiti’ is a nation’s soul. The strength and energy activating the nation is called “Virat” and channeled by ‘Chiti’. The place of ‘Virat” in the life of nation is similar to that of Prana in the body. Just as ‘Prana’ infuses strength in various organs of the body, refreshed the intellect and keeps body and soul together; so also in a nation, with a strong ‘Virat’ alone can democracy succeed and the government be effective. Then the diversity of our nation does not prove an obstacle to our national unity. The difference of languages, occupations, etc. are present everywhere. However, when the ‘Virat’ is awake, diversity does not lead to conflicts and people co-operates with each other like the various limbs of the human body or like the members of a family.

We have to undertake the task of awakening our nation’s ‘Virat’. Let us go forward in this task with a sense of pride for our heritage, with a realistic assessment of the present and a great ambition for the future. We wish neither to make this country a shadow of some distant past nor an imitation of Russia or America. With the support of Universal knowledge and our heritage, we shall create a Bharat which will excel all its past glories, and will enable every citizen in its fold to steadily progress in the development of his manifold latent possibilities and to achieve through a sense of unity with the entire creation, a state even higher than that of a complete human being; to become Narayan from ‘Nar’. This is the external divine from of our culture. This is our message to humanity to cross roads. May God give us strength to succeed in this task.


25th April 1965

(Source: http://deendayalupadhyay.org/speeches.html)





Integral Humanism – Lectures of Deendayal Upadhyaya – 3



23rd April 1965

C H A P T E R- 3

Yesterday we considered man as an individual. There are different aspects of an individual personality, different levels of needs of an individual. In order to develop complete personality, to satisfy the needs progressively but simultaneously at all levels, certain specific kinds of efforts are needed. These, too, were considered. But man does not exist merely as an individual. The individual comprising of body, mind, intellect and soul as not limited to singular “I” but is also inseparably related to the plural “We”. Therefore we must also think of the group or the society. It is a simple truth treat society is a group of men. But how did society come into being? Many views have been put forward by philosophers. Those propounded in the West and on which the western sociopolitical structure is based can be broadly summarized as “society is a group of individuals brought into being by the individuals by an agreement among themselves.” This view is known as “Social Contract Theory”. Individual is given greater importance in. this view. If there are any differences in different western views, these pertain only to the questions, namely, “If the individual produced a society, then in whom the residual power remains vested, in the society or in the individual? Does the individual have the right to change the society? Can the society impose a variety or regulations on the individual and claim a right to the allegiance of the individual to itself? Or the individual is free as regards these questions?”

 Individual Versus society

There is a controversy in the West on this question. Some have opted for the society as supreme and from this a conflict has arisen. The truth is that the view that individuals have brought society into being is fundamentally incorrect. It is true that the society is composed of a number of individuals. Yet it is not made by people, nor does it come into being by mere coming together of a number of individuals. In our view society is self-born. Like an individual, society comes into existence in an organic way. People do not produce society. It is not a sort of club, or some joint stock company, or a registered co-operative society. In reality, society is an entity with its own “SELF”, its own life; it is a sovereign being like an individual; it is an organic entity.


Let me give you an illustration. Once during a conversation between Shri Vinobaji and the Sarsanghachalak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Shri Guruji, a question arose as to where the modes of thinking of Hindus and Muslims differ. Guruji said to Vinobaji that there are good and bad people in every society. There can be found honest and good people in Hindus as well as in Muslims. Similarly rascals can be seen in both the societies. No particular society has a monopoly of goodness. However, it is observed that Hindus even if they are rascals individual life, when they come together in a group, they always think of good things. On the other hand when two Muslims come together, they propose and approve of things which they themselves in their individual capacity would not even think of. They start thinking in an altogether different way. This is an everyday experience. Vinobaji admitted that there was truth in this observation but had no reasons to explain it.

If we analyze this situation, we shall discover that the modes of thinking of an individual and of a society are always different. These two do not bear an arithmetic relation. If a thousand good men gather together it cannot be said for certain that they will think similarly of good things.


Why Mighty Nations Of Antiquity Perished?

It is known that some ancient nations disappeared. The ancient Greek nation came to end. Egyptian civilization similarly disappeared. Babylonian and Syrian civilizations are a matter of history. Cynthia’s perished. Was there ever a time when the citizens of those nations stopped living together? It was only the fact that there were wide differences among people that led to the downfall of these nations. The Greece in the past produced Alexander and Heredotes. Ulysis and Aristotle, Socrates and Plato and the present day Greece is inhabited by people of the same hereditary stock. There was no interruption in their heredity, because there never was a time when the whole of Greece was devoid of human population and when a new race inhabited that country. Such a thing never happened. Father and son tradition of old Greece was never interrupted. It is possible to trace the ancestry of present day Greeks to the old Greeks, some 250 to 500 generation back. Despite all the old Greek Nation is non-existent. So also the old Egyptian Nation Is no longer there. New nations have arisen in those places. How did this happen? This simple fact is indisputable, that nations do not come into existence by a mere co habitation. There was never a time in the lives of the citizens of these decadent nations, when they stopped living in a group. On the other hand Israeli Jews lived for centuries with other peoples scattered far and wide, yet they did not get annihilated in the societies in which they lived because of cohabitation. It is clear therefore that the source of national feeling is not in staying on a particular piece of land, but is in something etc.

What Is A Nation?

That source is in the goal which is put before the people. When a group of persons live with a goal and ideal, a mission, and looks upon a particular place of land as motherland, this group constitutes a nation. If either of the two-an ideal and a motherland-is not there, then there is no nation. There is a “Self” in the body, the essence of the individual; upon the severance of its relation with the body, a person is said to die. Similarly there is this idea, ideal, or fundamental principle of a nation, its soul. Although it is believed that man take birth again and again, yet the reborn person is a different individual. They are treated as two separate beings. The same soul leaves one body and enters another, but the previous and the latter are two different individuals. The end of a person is nothing but the departure of his soul from his body. The other components of the body also undergo change. From childhood to old age, there is a drastic change! The biologists tell us that in course of a few years, every cell of our body is replaced by a new one. A variety of changes takes place. Because the soul resides in the body without interruption, the body continues its existence; such a relation is known as “the law of identity” in logic. It is due to this identity that we admit the continued existence of any entity. In this connection a nice illustration of a barber’s razor is sometimes advanced. Once while shaving a customer, a barber, prided in his razor being 60 years old.

His father too had worked with the same razor. The customer was surprised especially because the handle was quite shiny and new In appearance. “Why the handle is quite shiny? How have your preserved the brightness for sixty years?” He asked. Barber too was amused with this. Is it possible to preserve the handle in a brand new appearance for sixty years? It has been replaced only six months ago”. He replied naturally. The customer was curious and asked and how old is the steel? Three years was the reply. In brief, the handle was replaced, the steel was also replaced, but the razor remained old! Its identity was intact. Similarly a nation too has a soul. There is a technique name for it. In the “Principles arid Policies” adopted by the Jana Sangh, this name is mentioned. The word is Chiti. According to McDougal, it is the innate nature of a group. Every group of persons has an innate nature. Similarly every society has an innate nature, which is inborn and is not the result of historical circumstances.


Chiti, Culture, Dharma

By way of an illustration consider the story of Mahabharat. Kauravas were defeated, and Pandavas won. Why did we hold up the conduct of Pandavas as Dharma? Or why this battle was not considered just a battle for a kingdom? The praise for Yudhistir and the dishonor heaped on Duryodhana are not a result of political causes Krishna killed his uncle Kansa, the established king of the times. Instead of branding this as a revolt, we consider Krishna as an Avatar of God, and Kansa as an Asura. Rama was assisted in his invasion of Lanka by Vibhishana, brother of Ravana. Such conduct of Vibhishana instead of being branded as treason is considered good and exemplary. He betrayed his brother and his king even as Jaichand had one later on. He might be branded as a “quisling”. But Vibhishana is not called “quisling’ by any one. On the contrary he is highly praised for his conduct, and Ravana actions are disapproved. Why so? The reason behind this is not political. If there is any standard for determining the merits and demerits of particular action, it is this Chiti; from nature whatever is in accordance with ‘Chiti’, is approved and added on to culture. These things are to be cultivated. Whatever is against ‘Chiti,’ is discarded as perversion, undesirable, is to be avoided. Chiti is the touchstone on which each action, each attitude is tested, and determined to be acceptable or otherwise. ‘Chiti’ is the soul of the nation. On the strength of this ‘Chiti’, a nation arises, strong and virile if it is this ‘Chiti’ that is demonstrated in the actions of every great man of a nation.

An individual is also in instrument in bringing forth the soul of the nation “Chiti”. Thus apart from his own self, an individual also represents his nation. Not only that, but he also mans the various institutions that are created for the fulfillment of the national goal. Therefore he represents these too. The groups larger than nation such as “mankind” are also represented by him. In short, an individual has a multitude of aspect, but they are not conflicting; there is co-operation. unity and harmony in them. A system based on the recognition of this mutuality complementary nature of the different ideals of mankind, their essential harmony, a system which devises laws, which removes the disharmony and enhances these mutual usefulness and co-operation, alone can bring peace and happiness to mankind; can ensure steady development.

“Institution”- A Means To Fulfill National Needs



Later on interruption and disorganization came into existence. Greed and anger dominated. Dharma was on the decline and the rule “might is right” prevailed. The Rishis were perturbed over the developments. They all went to Brahma to seek counsel, Brahma gave them a treatise on “Law and the Functions of the State”, which he had himself writer. At the same time, he asked Manu to become the first King. Manu declined saying that a king will have to punish other persons, put them in jail and so on; he was not prepared to commit all these sins. There upon Brahma said, your actions in the capacity of king will not constitute sin, a long as they are aimed at securing conditions under which the society can live peacefully and according to Dharma. This will be your duty, your Dharma. Not only that but You will also have a share of the Karma of your subjects, whereby you will gain Dharma considerably if your subjects maintain conduct according to Dharma. Although it is not explicitly stated here, but I believe that if the society under any king committed sin, a part of that too must automatically go to the account of the king. It is not proper if only good things are shared by the king and not the bad ones; both must be shared in the same proportion.



Society and Individual not conflicting




Dharma Sustains the Society



Dharma and Religion Are Different









It runs counter to the unity and indivisibility of Bharat. There is no recognition of the idea of Bharatmata, Our sacred motherland, as enshrined in the hearts of our people. According to the first para of the Constitution, “India that is Bharat will be a federation of States”, i.e. Bihar Mata, Banga Mata, Punjab Mata, Kannada Mata, Tamil Mata, all put together make Bharat Mata. This is ridiculous. We have thought of the provinces as limbs of Bharat Mata and not as individual mother. Therefore our constitution should be unitary instead of federal. A unitary State does not mean concentration of all powers in the Centre; just as the head of the family does not have all the powers with him even though all the transactions are carried out in his name. Others also share the executive power. In our body also, does the soul possess all powers? Thus a unitary State does not mean a highly autocratic centre nor does it entail the elimination of provinces. The provinces will have various executive powers. Even the various entities below the provincial level, such as the Jana Padas, will also have suitable powers. The Panchayats too should have powers. Traditional, the Panchayats had a very important position. Nobody could dissolve Panchayats. Today, however, our constitution does not have any place for these Panchayats. There are no powers to these Panchayats in their own right. They exist at the mercy of the states only as delegated authorities. It is necessary that their powers be considered fundamental. In this way, the decentralization of power will be accomplished. The authority will be distributed to the lowest level, and will be fully decentralized. At the same time, all these entities of power will be centered around the unitary State. This arrangement will embody Dharma.

If we carry this concept of Dharma even further, not only the State and the nation but the nature of the entire mankind will have to be considered. In other words, the constitution of a nation cannot be contrary to the natural law. There are a number of norms of behavior which are not found in any statute book, yet they do exist. At times they are even stronger and more binding than any statutory law. The precept that one should respect one’s parents is not written in any law. The present day governments which are turning out variety of laws, day in and day out have not passed a law to this effect. Still, people respect their parents. Those who do not are criticized. If tomorrow there arises a discussion, even in a court. it will be generally accepted that as long as a person does not attain majority, he should accept his parent’s decisions and should respect them.

Thus the fundamental law of human nature us the standard for deciding the propriety of behavior in various situations. We have termed this very law as’ Dharma’. The nearest equivalent English term for Dharma can be “Innate law”, which, however, does not express the full meaning of Dharma, since ‘Dharma’ is supreme; our ideal of the state has been “Dharma Rajya”. The king is supposed to protect Dharma. In olden times at the coronation ceremony the king used to recite three times. “There is no authority which can punish me”. (Similar claim was made by kings in the western countries. i.e., it was said, “King can do no wrong”, and hence there too, nobody could punish the king). Upon this, the Profit used to strike the king on his back with a staff saying.

“No, you are subject to the rule of Dharma. You are not sovereign”. The king used to run around the sacred fire and the Profit would follow him striking him with the Staff. Thus after completing three rounds, the ceremony would came to an end thereby the king was unambiguously told that he was not an unpunishable sovereign. Dharma was above him, that even he was subject to Dharma. Can the people do whatever they please? It may be contended that democracy means just that. The people can do what they please. But in our country, even in people wish, they are not free to act contrary to Dharma. Once a priest was asked: “If the God is omnipotent, can he act contrary to Dharma. If he does, then he is not omnipotent”. This was a dilemma. Can God practice Adharma or is lie not omnipotent? Actually God cannot act contrary to Dharma. If he does, then he is not omnipotent. Adharma is a characteristic of weakness, not of strength. If the fire instead of emitting heat dies out, it is no longer strong. Strength lies not in unrestrained behavior, but in well regulated action. Therefore God who is omnipotent is also self- regulated and consequently fully in tune with Dharma. God descends in human body to destroy Adharma and re-establish Dharma, not to act on passing whims and fancies. Hence even God can do everything but cannot act contrary to Dharma. But for the risk of being misunderstood, one can say that Dharma is even greater than God. The universe is sustained because he acts according to Dharma. The king was supposed to be a symbol of Vishnu, in as much as he was the chief protector of Dharma Rajya.

Dharma Rajya does not mean a theocratic state. Let us be very clear on this point, Where a particular sect and its prophet or Guru, rule supreme, that is a theocratic state. All the rights are enjoyed by the followers of this particular sect. Others either cannot live in that country or at best enjoy a slave-like, secondary citizen’s status. Holy Roman empire had this basis. The same concept was existing behind “Khilafat”. The Muslim kings world over used to rule in the name of Khalifa. After the First World War, this came to an end. Now efforts are afoot to revive it. Pakistanis the most recent theocratic state, they call themselves an Islamic State. There, apart from Muslims all the rest are second class citizens. Apart from this difference there is no other sign of Islam in Pakistan’s administration.

Quran, Masjid, Roja Id, Namaz etc. are same both in Bharat as well as in Pakistan. There is no need to the state and religion. By such a tie-up, there is no increase in an individual’s capacity to worship God. The only result is that the state slips in its duty. This does not happen in a Dharma Rajya. Rather there is freedom to worship according to one’s religion. In a theocratic state one religion has all the rights and advantages, and there are direct or indirect restrictions on all other religions. Dharma Rajya accepts the importance of religion in the peace, happiness and progress of an individual. Therefore the state has the responsibility to maintain an atmosphere in which every individual can follow the religion of his choice and live in peace. The freedom has its inherent limits. I have the freedom to swing my hand, but as soon as there is conflict between my hand and someone else’s nose, my freedom has to be restricted. I have no freedom to swing my hand so as to hit another person’s nose.



This quarrel is like a quarrel whether left hand is more important or right hand? Both are limbs of the state, the Legislature is well as Judiciary. Both have distinct functions to perform in their individual sphere each is supreme. To consider either one above the other would be mistake. Yet the legislators say, “we are higher”, On the other hand members of the Judiciary assert that they have a higher authority, since they interpret the laws which the legislature makes. The Legislature claims to have given powers to the Judiciary. If necessary, legislature can change the constitution. Hence it claims sovereignty. Now since powers are bestowed by constitution, they are talking of amendment to the constitution. But I believe that even if by a majority the constitution is amended, it will be against Dharma. In ‘reality’ both the Legislature and the Judiciary are on an equal plane. Neither the Legislature is higher nor the Judiciary. Dharma is higher than both. The Legislature will have to act according to Dharma and the Judiciary will have to act according to Dharma. Dharma will specify limits of both. The Legislature, the Judiciary or the people, none of these are supreme. Some will say, “Why! People are sovereign. They elect”, But even the people are not sovereign because people too have no right to act against Dharma. If an elected government allows people to go against Dharma and does not punish, then that government is in reality a government of thieves.

Even the general will cannot go against Dharma. Imagine the situation if by some maneuvering, thieves gain a majority in the government and send one of their ranks as an executive! What will be the duty of the minority if the majority is of thieves and elects a thief to rule? The duty clearly will be to remove the representative elected by the majority. During the Second World War then Hitler attacked France, the French army could not stall the onward march of Nazi troops. The then Prime Minister of France, Marshall Petain decided to surrender. The French public supported the decision, but De Gaulle escaped to London where he declared that he did not accept the surrender. France is independent and will remain so. From London, he formed a Government of France in Exile and eventually liberated France. Now if the majority rule is to be considered supreme, then De Gaulle’s action will have to be condemned. He had no right to fight in the name of independence. De Gaulle derived his right from the fact that the French nation was above the majority public opinion. The national Dharma is above all.

Independence is Dharma of every nation. To preserve independence and to strive for regaining it when lost is the duty of every citizen. Even in our country a majority had not risen against the Britishers; only a few had. Some revolutionaries arose; some brave people arose and fought. Lokmanya declared “Freedom is my Birth right”. He did not declare this birthright with the support of a majority or by a referendum from the public. Nowadays people advocate that the merger of Goa should be decided by referendum, that there should be plebiscite in Kashmir etc., etc. This is wrong. National unity is our Dharma. Decision concerning this cannot be made by plebiscite. This type of a decision has already been taken by the nature. Elections and majority can decide as to who will form the government. The truth cannot be decided by the majority. What the government will do will be decided by Dharma.

You all know that in the USA where they swear by democracy, at one time Lincoln did not accept wrong public opinion. On the question of the abolition of slavery when the southern states declared their intention to secede, Lincoln stood firm and told them: “You have no right to secede even in a democracy”. He fought against this and did not allow them to secede. Nor did he tolerate slavery. He did not show readiness for a compromise whereby there may continue partial slavery to accommodate southern states. He did not accept the principle of meeting halfway. He categorically declared that the system of slavery was against tradition, the Dharma, the principle which was at the basis of American nation. Therefore the system of slavery had to be abolished. When the Southerners decided to secede he told them “You cannot secede”. On this point there was a civil war and Lincoln did not compromise with Adharma.


Let us understand very clearly that Dharma is not necessarily with the majority or with the people. Dharma is eternal. Therefore,  in the definition of democracy to say that it is a government of the people. It is not enough; it has to be for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of the people? Dharma alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government “Jana Rajya” must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a “Dharma Rajya”. In the definition of ‘Democracy’ viz. “government of the people, by the people and for the people”, of stands for independence, ‘by’ stands for democracy and ‘for’ Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all these concepts.

(Source: http://deendayalupadhyay.org/speeches.html)



Lecture #4: https://arisebharat.wordpress.com/?p=5298

Integral Humanism – Lectures of Deendayal Upadhyaya – 2


22nd April 1965

C H A P T E R- 2


Modern versus Ancient



 The Past Cannot be Disowned

In the past one thousand years whatever we assimilated whether it was forced on us or we took with willingness cannot be discarded now. Besides, we too have created originality not a little. In the life of our society, we did not remain always mere passive witness to whatever new challenging situations arose; nor did we merely react to every alien action. We too have attempted to reshape our life as required to face the new situations. Therefore, it will not do, simply to close our eyes to all that has happened in the past one thousand years.

Foreign Ideologies Are Not Universal

Similarly those who would like to make western ideologies the basis of our progress forget that these ideologies have arisen in certain special situations and time. These are not necessarily universal. They cannot be free from the limitations of the particular people and their culture, which gave birth to these Isms. Besides this, many of these ideas are already out of date. The principles of Marx have changed both with the changing times as well as with varying conditions to the extent that parrot like repetition of Marxism for problems facing our country would amount to a reactionary attitude rather than a scientific and pragmatic one. It is indeed surprising that those who claim to reform the society by removing dead traditions, themselves fall prey to some outdated foreign traditions.

Our country: Our problems


Human Knowledge Is Common Property


The Conflicting Ideas

The western political thought has accepted Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism or equality as ideals. Besides now and then, there have been attempts directed at world unity which took the shape of the “League of Nations” and after the Second World War, the “United Nation Organizations”. For a variety of reasons those have not succeeded. However, those definitely were attempts in that direction.

All these ideals have in practice proved to be incomplete and mutually opposing. Nationalism led to conflict between nations and in turn to global conflict, whereas if status-quo is regarded as synonymous with world peace the aspirations of many small nations to be independent would have never been fulfilled. World unity and Nationalism conflict with each other. Some advocate suppression of Nationalism for world unity whereas other regard world unity as an utopian ideal and emphasize national interest to the utmost.

Similar difficulty arises in reconciling Socialism and Democracy. Democracy grants individual liberty but the same is used by capitalist system for exploitation and monopoly. Socialism was brought in to end exploitation but it eliminated the freedom and dignity of the individual. Mankind stands confused unable to decide what is the correct path for future progress. The West is not in a position to say with confidence that “this alone and no other” is the right path. It is itself groping. Therefore simply to follow the West would be an instance of a blind being led by another blind.

In this situation our attention is claimed by the Bharatiya culture. Is possible that our culture can point the direction to the world? From the national stand point we shall have to consider our culture because that is our very nature. Independence is intimately related to one’s own culture. If culture does not form the basis of independence then the political movement for independence would reduce simply to a scramble by selfish and power seeking persons independence can be meaningful only if it becomes instrument for the expression of our culture. Such expression will not only contribute to our progress but the effort required will also give us the experience of joy. Therefore, both from the national as well as human standpoint it has become essential that we think of the principles of the Bharatiya culture. If with its help we can reconcile the various ideals of the western political though then it will be an added advantages for us. These western principles are a product of revolution in human thought, and social conflict. They represent one or the other aspiration of mankind. It is not proper to ignore them.

Bharatiya Culture Is Integrated


Mutual Conflict – Sign of Cultural Regression

Unity in diversity and the expression of unity in various forms has remained the central thought of Bharatiya culture. If this truth is wholeheartedly accepted then there will not exist any cause for conflict among various powers. Conflict is not a sign of culture of nature: rather it is a symptom of their degradation. The law of the jungle, “Survival of the Fittest” which the West discovered in recent years was known to our philosophers.


Mutual Co-operation



A mother brings up her children. Mother’s love is held up as the highest love. On such a basis alone we can devise the rules regulating the life of mankind. Sometimes there are examples of selfishness and cruelty of a mother toward her child. Among some species of animals’ mother devise her progeny to satisfy the hunger. On the other hand among monkeys mother carries her child long after its death. Both types of behavior are found among living things. Which of these two principles of nature can be made the basis of civilized life? We cannot but conclude that alone which helps to sustain life can be chosen, the contrary cannot lead to civilized life. Human nature has tendencies, anger, and greed on the one hand and love, sacrifice on the other. All these are present in our nature. Anger etc. are natural to man and beasts. For the reason if we make anger a standard in our life and arrange our efforts accordingly then the result will be a lack of harmony in our life. Therefore the exhortation, “do not yield to anger” even when the anger arises in one’s mind one can exercise control over it and one should do so. Thus control becomes a standard of our life and not anger.


“Do not tell lies to one another; say what you know to be true”. This is a principle. Its usefulness becomes apparent at every step in life. We appreciates truthful person. If we speak lie, we ourselves feels unhappy; life cannot go on; there will be great confusion.

Modern versus Ancient

These Principles Constitute Our Dharma

A child does not speak lie by nature. Often Parents, teach their child to speak untruths. When the child desires something, if parents do not wish that child should have it, they conceal the object and tell the child that the desired object has disappeared. The child may be fooled a couple of times but soon knows the real situation and learns to speak untruth. This fact that by nature a person is truthful is a law that is discovered. Many other principles of ethics are similarly discovered. They are not arbitrarily framed by someone. In Bharat these principles are termed “Dharma”, laws of life. All those principles which bring about harmony, peace and progress in the life of mankind are included in this “Dharma”. On the sound basis of “Dharma” then, we must proceed with the analysis of life as an integral whole.

When Nature is channeled according to the principles of Dharma, we have culture and civilization. It is indeed this culture which will enable us to sustain and sublimate the life of mankind. “Dharma” is translated here as law. The English word ‘religion’ is not the correct word for ‘Dharma’.

As pointed out earlier an integrated life is the foundation and the principle underlying this culture as well as its aims and ideals. We have thought of life as Integrated not only in the case of collective or social life but also in the individual life. Normally an individual is thought of in the physical bodily forms. Physical comfort and luxury is considered happiness. But we know that mental worry destroys bodily happiness. Everyone desires physical comfort. But if a person is imprisoned and there he is given finest of food etc., will he be happy? A person does not experience joy on getting nice food if it is also accompanied by a few abuses. There is a well-known incident in Mahabharata. When Lord Krishna went to Hastinapur as an emissary of Pandavas, Duryodhan invited him to enjoy his hospitality. Lord Krishna declined his Invitation and went instead to Vidura’s home. Overjoyed by the visit of this much revered guest, Vidura’s wife served the banana skins while throwing away the pulp. But Lord Krishna enjoyed even the meal of banana skin. That is why it is said, “Even a modest meal served with dignity and affection tastes better than the best delicacies served with disrespect”. It is necessary therefore to take not of the mental happiness.

Similarly there is an intellectual happiness which too must be considered even after a person gets comforts for the body, and importance, affection, etc. which please the mind. If he is involved in some intellectual confusion he is reduced to a state almost similar to madness. And what is madness itself? A lunatic may have all physical comforts, he may be perfectly healthy and properly cared for by his relatives; but he does not possess intellectual happiness. Intellectual peace is also essential and important. We will have to take all these things into consideration.

Modern versus Ancient

The Political Aspirations of Man

Body, mind, intelligence and the soul.-these four make up an individual. But these are integrated. We cannot think of each part separately. The confusion that has arisen in the West is due to the fact that they have treated each of the above aspects of human being separately and without any relation to the rest. When there was movement for democratic structure, they proclaimed “man is a political animal” and therefore his political aspirations must be attended to. Why only one person should be the king and others his subjects’? Let everyone rule! In Order to satisfy this political man they gave him the right to vote. Now he did get the right to a vote, but at the same time other rights diminished. Then the questions arose. “The voting right is nice but what about food?  What if there is nothing to eat?” They wondered, “Now that you have voting right, you are the king. Why need you worry?” But man replied, “What shall I do with the state if I do not get any food? I have no use of this voting right. I want bread first. Then came Karl Marx and said, “Yes, bread is the most important thing. The state belongs to the ‘haves’. So let us fight for bread. He saw man as primarily made up of body, wanting bread. But those who followed the path shown by Karl Marx came to realize that they had neither bread, nor voting-right.


Even though Moksha has been considered the highest of these Purusharthas, efforts for Moksha alone are not considered to give benefit to the soul. On the other hand, a person who engages in action, while remaining unattached to its fruits, is said to achieve Moksha inevitably and earlier. Artha includes what is known as political and economic policies. According to the ancients, it used to include the justice and punishment also. Kama relates to the satisfaction of various natural desires. “Dharma” defines a set of rules to regulate the social activity Artha and Kama, so as to progress in an integral and harmonious way and attain not only Kama and Artha but also Moksha eventually. Thus even though Dharma regulates Artha and Kama, all the three are interrelated and mutually complementary. Dharma helps achieve Artha. Even in business, one requires honesty, restraint, truthfulness etc. which are the attributes of Dharma. Without these qualities one cannot earn money. It must be admitted that Dharma is instrumental in attaining Artha and Kama. Americans proclaimed, “Honesty is the best business policy”. In Europe they said, “Honesty is the best policy”. We go one step forward and assert “Honesty is not a policy but a principle” i.e. we believe in dharma not just because it is instrumental in acquiring Artha but because it is a fundamental principle of civilized life. Kama too can be attained only through Dharma. Having produced the material things such as nice food, when, where, how and in what measure it will be used can be determined only by Dharma. If a sick person eats food meant for a healthy one and vice versa, both of them will be at a disadvantage. Dharma helps in restraining the natural tendencies of man, whereby he is able to determine what is beneficial to him apart from what is pleasurable. Hence Dharma is given the foremost place in our culture. Dharma is of primary importance, but we should not forget that it is not possible to practice Dharma in the absence of Artha. There is a saying “What sin will not be committed by one who is starving? Those who have lost everything become ruthless.”



(Source: http://deendayalupadhyay.org/speeches.html)




Integral Humanism – Lectures of Deendayal Upadhyaya – 1



Integral Humanism

C H A P T E R – 1



 Whither Bharat




The Root of Our Problems-Neglect of Self



Opportunism Has Shaken the Confidence of People in Politics


What Should Be Our Direction?



The Rise of European Nations




Birth of Democracy In Europe


Individual Was Exploited



Dictatorship of The Proletariat



(Source: http://deendayalupadhyay.org/speeches.html)




Integral Humanism – A Study

एकात्म मानव दर्शन : एक अध्ययन

Panditji’s most valuable contribution to mankind was his enunciation of the concept of Integral Humanism. Those deeply involved in the make-and-break politics may mistake Panditji’s Integral Humanism as a new ‘ism’ or doctrine or dogma propounded by him inorder to counter all other prevailing ‘isms’ or to add a new one. It is all too well-known that prophets of an ‘ism’ or a new political thought claim originality. It is more so in the West. A slight deviation or difference with the current thought entitles one to proclaim himself the founder of a new doctrine. But no such thought ever crossed Panditji’s mind. As a true votary of culture, he was not given to this narrowness. He believed in what Bhagwan Sri Krishna said in the Gita that true knowledge is timeless. One may observe some variation in its expressed form owing to varied situations and conditions but that does not mean the creation of new knowledge. Panditji, through his creative ability and positive outlook put a new gloss on the true and eternal thought current and reinterpreted it to suit the changed and contemporary world. It would be clear, therefore, that integral humanism was conceived only to perfect ‘isms’ so that they could meet the challenges posed to them. It was farthest from his thought to add to the ideological bitterness obtaining in the society by outright rejection or repudiation of any of the contemporary ideas, ism or viewpoints while expressing his own.

Why this ‘ism’ or that

Pandiji was opposed to all ‘isms’. He only believed that which was truthful and timeless, could face the challenges of change and, therefore, could hardly fit into the steel-frame of any ‘ism’. In other words, no ‘ism’ can ever suit all countries and conditions and for all times. He precisely thought so. But in the modern age, people cannot think without an ‘ism’, and he too adopted the usage only as a compromise for the convenience of his audience.

But to dispel any doubts in this behalf, he used to explain that as one cannot easily concentrate his mind in निर्गुण (“Nirgun” or attribute-less) (or) निराकार (“Niraakar” or formless) ब्रह्मा (Brahma), he needs in the beginning, to fix his mind on सगुन (Sagun or of attributes) or साकार (Sakar or of forms) ब्रह्मा (Brahma). Once one gets accustomed to this form of concentration it becomes easier for him later to do so in respect of the “Nirguna” or “Nirakar” Brahma also. So to grasp easily the real and eternal truth which is above all ‘isms’, first one has to comprehend fully the reality that exists in this world through the medium of integral humanism.

Seer not a Philosopher

To engage oneself in constant debate, discourse or a controversy is the function of a philosopher. Panditji was not a philosopher in that sense of the term. To call him so is to belittle him. In the tradition of Bharatiya sages of yore, he was in fact a seer. Therefore, whatever he has seen and perceived, may be called दर्शन, “Darshan”. The word philosophy hardly conveys what we Bharatiyas mean by the term. This kind of “Darshan” is neither new nor unfamiliar to us. It has flourished in our soil. It will be worthwhile to understand this basic point before we proceed further so that there is no confusion because of the use of this suffix.

Why at all we needed the term and the concept of Integral Humanism at this juncture, specially when many many ‘isms’ and thoughts were born, spread and are regarded as progressive in the west. Many of our people wonder whether it is worth its while to strain our brains unnecessarily when our problems could be solved by borrowing wholesale the ‘isms’ or theories of the west. Similarly, it is also unreasonable to reject everything of western origin. It would therefore be useful to briefly review the currents and cross-currents of western thought in the last three or four centuries.

Western Thought

Let us, first of all, deal with ‘sect’, or religion. It can be stated briefly that when this drama of religion was being enacted on the European stage, the entire system or order was centrifugal. The Pope was the central point and the entire Christian world revolved around him. Later on, two revolts challenged the centralized authority of the Pope.

In the second phase of religion, the idea that there was no need of an intermediary like the Pope between the seeker and the sought became very powerful. This gave rise to sects like the Protestants. The people thought that interference by an external authority which may be confined to religious matters, should not be permitted in the affairs of the state. Thus was born the concept of Nationalism.

In the third phase, we find that the existence of religion was attacked and it was decried as meaningless as an ‘opiate’. To think of a supernatural power beyond perceptible human power came to be regarded as devoid of truth and mere flight of imagination. The origin, middle and the end of the universe was nothing but godless physical matter. Religion was nothing but an illusion. As physical elements and matter were believed to be origin of nature, mind too was considered a superstructure on matter. I other words, religion, culture, ethics, etc., has no independent existence and were mere reflections of social and economic conditions. Thus in the third phase, matter became fundamental and religion was totally rejected.

Reaction against Atheism

The next phase of development in Europe witnessed a reaction against materialistic atheism. Scholars and thinkers began to realize that whatever views Marx might have formed on degeneration of religion and the Church and howsoever relevant they might have been to the situation then prevailing there, it would be wrong to regard them universal or global. Instead, emphasis shifted to re-evaluation of the place of religion in the different countries in different periods. Thinkers began saying that even if religion was not to be regarded as fundamental to human life, they would have to concede, it had a distinct place and it would be wrong to think that religion was an opiate or its form was determined by social and economic condition.

Change in Marxists’ Thinking

Such ideas started gathering momentum. Further, even the staunchest of Marxists who, very loudly denounced God in favour of materialism and who condemned religion as opiate, started doubting Marx as crude materialist. His thesis in 1842, on the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the press, and his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts published in 1844, prompted his followers to declare that he was not a mere materialistic thinker. They thought that just as inanimate and material things influenced abstract thought, abstract thinking too influenced insentient material objects. Similarly, if, on the one hand, social and economic situation played an important role in shaping religion, culture and ethics, on the other, socio-economic conditions were also influenced by religion, culture and ethics. In other words, they act and interact on each other.

Four Centuries of European Thought

Let us discuss what does European history of four centuries reveal? We find that in the early period individual is the primary unit. But when the curtain is raised, we do not find the free individual anywhere on the scene. He is merely a puppet in the hands of the Pope or of the Monarch with no free will of his own.

In the next stage, we see that the individuality of man asserts itself through defiance of the oppressors. This led to open revolt against the Pope and the Monarch, which liquidated the authority of the Papal state and monarchy. Later, the thought that individual freedom should remain unrestrained gained ground. Institutions like the Parliament, or other democratic systems which ensured individual freedom came into existence and people were happy that those agencies could protect individual liberty.

With the passage of time, individual liberty led to freedom for exploitation; the democratic institutions turned into means of exploitation of the weak by the strong, of the poor by the rich and of the less intelligent by the more intelligent. We thus witness in Europe emergence of two classes – the exploiting minority and the exploited majority. Those oppressed to any kind of exploitation were up against freedom of exploitation while those opposed to it wanted to do away with individual freedom. In other words, extinction of individuality of the individual was demanded. The situation, then, warranted a totalitarian apparatus. And what could it be?

All intents to establish a totalitarian state in the name of individual freedom and all institutions wanting freedom of exploitation met with strong opposition. Thus arose the need of a revolution, a bloody revolution, since democratic institutions were found to be incapable of ending exploitation. It is how the idea of a bloody revolution aimed at establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat gained popular support. Incidentally, a bloody revolution did take place in Russia. But experience proved that it was not the dictatorship of the entire exploited masses but of a coterie, a ruling coterie. People tolerated the order in the hope that, that was a transitory phase and that as soon as the dictatorship of the have-nots was established, the situation would change. But their hopes were belied and they began to realize that the dictatorship of an individual or a small clique has come to stay. That, perhaps, is the reason why we witness signs of revolt against this order, the one under which they are groaning.

Urge for Individual Freedom

It appears that rumblings against the communist state and the urge and efforts to restore individual freedom have set in. In the countries which are not directly ruled by communists but have communist parties, party leaders are hotly debating why could not democratic institutions and agencies be used to end exploitation. An influential section of such leaders argue that, may be the idea of bloody revolution was relevant and inescapable in the timers of Marx, but in the changed circumstances, parliamentary institutions could be utilized for founding dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, in countries where Communism had not gained any foothold and where parliamentary democracy and other democratic institutions were welcomed as alternative to monarchy and as weapon to defend the individual, people seem to be losing faith in these very institutions. This section believes in complete freedom and is not prepared to bear with even such restraints and discipline as the western democracy prescribes for the individual. It makes no distinction between freedom and licence. Hippies, in the western world, belong to this section. They are not only opposed to democratic institutions but to any order that be. This, in short, is what has been going on in the West during the last three or four centuries; that is individual dominated as the central entity.

Revolt against ‘Family’

Now after the individual, we will discuss the institution and the system of family which remained intertwined in all societies through the ages. Hindu Shastras, Confucianism, Islam and Christianity all alike, accepted it as indispensable.   But in the west, this too was attacked for two reasons. The Communist condemned the family as being artificial system. They asked ‘why as entity like family should be allowed to stand between the individual and the society?’ – So – ‘break the family and set up communes’, they exhorted. In another direction a strong dislike was expressed against family discipline which each individual had to undergo. This, according to the dissenters, is a negation of individual freedom. The family, therefore, deserves to be destroyed and the young men or women should bid good-bye to their parents after marriage. The smaller the ones’ family, the better for unrestrained actions and doings.The deficiencies and faults of the two schools came to the fore sooner than later. The experiment of communes, in Soviet Russia flopped and as a reaction the desire for family life grew stronger. Even under communist state demand for extending legal recognition to parenthood and fatherhood became so forceful that ultimately the rulers had to yield. Similarly, in democratic countries, more especially in the U.S.A, eminent thinkers raised their voice against Hippie cult of licentious way of life and suggested reintroduction of the joint family, without which, a stable society was a far cry. Such views are now being widely accepted in USA.


The unit next to family is nation, society or national society. Somehow, it appears that owing, perhaps, to the overwhelming influence of the Pope over European masses, the awareness of nation or nationalism could not develop. But the same grew out of the reaction against the Pope’s interference in religion and against foreign and imperialist aggression. This background gave birth to a reactionary type of nationalism in Europe, which reinforced the view that if nationalism and the authority of the Pope could not go together, nationalism and internationalism were also opposed to each other. Consequently, a crude and extremist form of nationalism was born in every country of Europe.  Later a reaction to this extremist nationalism was natural, which led to the emergence of another extremist ideology – Communism.

Communism discarded the concept of religion nation or nationalism etc., as being redundant and meaningless and required everyone to think in terms of internationalism which alone was considered relevant. When in 1914 during the First World War, workers in several countries supported their respective national governments; Lenin could not help expressing his anguish over their stance. He suggested that the workers, instead of co-operating with their governments, should have turned traitors and strengthened the wave of internationalism.

Before long the communists took over in a number of countries. But in the process the charisma of internationalism began fading and nationalism again started reasserting as a force so much so that even under the state wedded to internationalism a thinker like Morris Hindos in his book ‘Mother Russia’ makes a strong advocacy of nationalism. In this context the two chapters of the book, “Rediscovery of the Past” and “Russia for Russians” are quite significant. And how the two internationalist powers (Russia and China) are set on a collision course at present is too well-known for comment.

Progress Stunted

The present conflict between nationalism and internationalism leaves little or no scope for the west to think of mankind as a whole. The reason behind this is that their entire thinking is homocentric – which means, that the center of the universe is the human race and the western realm of thought has kept revolving around it. Let us not take sides in the ideological strife of the west as to which one is right and which is wrong. But one cannot help concluding that whenever an ideology was imported into this country from the west, it was acclaimed as progressive and all other were branded reactionary. In spite of this, we find that none of the so-called progressive ideologies lasted long. They continued to change and vacillate from one extreme to another. This makes it very clear that the western thought has yet to attain durability and finality.

Product of Reaction

In short, the western though instead of being positive is an outcome of reactionLet us put it like this: Suppose there is a particular situation prevailing in a country, it is bound to give rise to an idea or thought. It also needs revision when the situation changes. Therefore, the entire western thinking being based on reaction, we notice a serious ideological conflict in that part of the world. We reckon it as their second trait. The third one is that no western though is all embracing, is valid for all times. Moreover, it is very much segmented. The fourth being their failure to synthesize the essence of varied thoughts put forth from time to time, with the result that they remained diverse and incompatible. The French Revolution is an instance point.

Life Values

The subject for today’s discussion has in the present circumstances assumed great relevance and is a lesson for our country. It would, therefore, be essential to comprehend it well.

For the sake of equality, the difference in the minimum and maximum income is sought to be reduced (we too want it). It would then be argued that in the meantime inspiration for one’s development will go. If the live values were to be purely economic, one is apt to think as to why he should work hard. In spite of one’s sweating labour and becoming an Einstein or a Radhakrishnan if he for reasons of equality received no more than Rs.2000, his enthusiasm is dampened. On the other hand, if he is a damned idler and remains a peon he cannot be paid less than Rs.100. Why then one should be up and doing to become Einstein or Radhakrishnan.

Therefore, if the source of inspiration were purely material, the will to individual improvement or enterprise will die and if the same were to be encouraged with material gain as the end, the object of equality will have to be given good-bye. The present-day problem of brain-drain in our country has its roots in that the life values have become purely materialistic with the result that if a higher material development is not attainable in this land, it should be sought elsewhere.

In order to change this unhappy and unhealthy situation, we need a life system with different values. The system should be an amalgam of material as well as non-material life values of universal nature. I am deliberately avoiding the term ‘spiritual’ nature. One is as much inspired by material motives as by the desire of social prestige or status. Let there be a system embracing both. Ancient Bharat did evolve such a system. The system ordained an inverse ratio for acquisition of social prestige and material gains.

That is, if one aims at highest social prestige, he should be prepared to forego personal material benefits in the same ratio to further elaborate the point, highest prestige or reverence could be commanded against lowest intake of society’s material resources. If, on the contrary, one wanted maximum benefit from the society, he was free to do so, but he won’t be entitled to social prestige in the same measure. This, an order based on careful balance of the two human incentives was achieved and maintained.

West lacks Balance

But the west lacked this balance. In the early days, after Communist Revolution in Soviet Russia, people were forced to work under the overseer’s whip. And today there exists 1 to 80 disparity in the minimum and maximum incomes which completely negates their avowed equality. Even existence of classes is being tolerated. The former Yugoslavia Prime Minster Djilas in his book, ‘The New Class’ confirms this disparity. Not only that, special amenities and benefits are being offered to some, as social incentives. I would recall here, when Russia shot its first Sputnik, Khrushchev proudly proclaimed it as a victory of communism. But soon came a rebuff from the well-known philosophers Bertrand Russell, “that was not the victory but the defeat of communism – that it was because of special treatment given to the scientists which was a privileged class, which enabled them to make the Sputnik”.

I also endorse it as a defeat of communism because they could not reconcile materialist way of life with equality. This is true of Russia, Yugoslavia and all other communist countries. To be precise, all incompatibilities obtaining in democracies are equally discernible in communist countries. To be precise, all incompatibilities obtaining in democracies are equally discernible in communist countries. In other words, western ideologies lack eternality, finality and durability. They are used to thinking in bits and grooves, with the result that the ideologies of the west instead of being positive are reactionary in nature. They lacked the capacity to harmonize the various desirable goals relating to a society and to a period of time.

No Blind Imitation

Against this backdrop, we are forced to recapitulate, whether we in this country, can afford a blind imitation of the west. Swami Vivekananda was told by western thinkers, “we would accept your ideas of spiritualism and in return you should accept our ideology of socialism. You agree with us in the sphere of economics, while we do so in the area of spiritualism”.

But, Swamiji replied,Brothers, you are right, but your new ideology is in experimental stage while ours is an ancient nation. We are no fanatics. Before we accept your ideology, let us see that it has stabilized. We should like to see the evidence whether it has sustained the society for some five hundred years. We cannot accept an ideology which has not yet been tired and is still in a state of experimentation”.

Communism – its plus and minus

Communism is acknowledged in the west as the most progressive ideology of the day! Let us scrutinize it in the context of Swamiji’s statement. Fifty years has hardly elapsed since the Russian Revolution when cracks appeared in communism. The very definition of communism is being disputed in its own camps. While Russia decries China as deviationist and revisionist, China hurls back the same invective at Russia and both use these accusations against Yugoslavia. Dange is revisionist in the eyes of Namboodiripad and vice versa. The two are agreed that Charu Mazumdar was a deviationist and revisionist and in the reckoning of the latter Dange and Namboodiripad are “misguided Marxists“.  If one were to compile the epithets used by one communist camp against the other, word communism, would be reduced to, word deviationism. There is nothing in communism which has not been found faultless. No rationalist can comfort himself over this situation. If within a short span of fifty years, the entire camp of the so-called progressive nations can come to such a degree of deviation, to quote Swamiji, “what is the guarantee that the ideology has the strength to sustain the society for five hundred years”?


When we deice to review various ideologies we will have to examine their merits and demerits without following them blindly. We should not object to adopting whatever is worthy. One reconstruction, the late Sarsanghchalak of RSS, once said of our old order, “There may be many withering leaves and branches of trees which have already decayed. Let them decay and fall. Let us not be sorry over this. Similarly, if fresh sprouts grow, we should welcome them. All that has to be watched is that they do form an organic while with the mother tree, they are one with the tree. The dried leaves and the dead wood will fall and new offshoots will issue in their place with the passage of time. This is a natural process. So let there be no hesitation, rather we should welcome new thoughts. The only condition is that they should help us in reaching our goals”. But it appears that west can hardly ensure this.

Bharatiya Way of Life

Now we are set on reviewing the western thought. Likewise they are doing the same about out thought. And about our socio-economic structure they hold views contrary to ours. They do not find anything congruous and consistent in any area of thought of system. Instead, they see chaos everywhere. Let us take such areas one by one and religion first.

In the eyes of westerners, a complete anarchy prevails in the sphere of religion. For them, there is no single or uniform faith in Bharat. While one is a theist the other is an atheist, the third a monoist and the fourth a dualist. Some worship idols, some formless God and other reject God in all forms. Even the believers do not have a common God. Gods abound, perhaps they number as many as their worshipers – some 333 million. This number was arrived at perhaps to match the Indian population of yore. Every individual is free to choose his or her own path to suit his nature, psyche, physique, and need of the soul. The paths are bound to differ. But this is unthinkable in the west, firstly because, there is regimentation in thinking and secondly because, they are used to an exclusive thinking that ‘I or my path alone is right’. It is not very unnatural for them to deduce that India is full of diversities and contradictions and they are indeed baffled by them. Similarly, the places of family, nation, society, internationalism vis-à-vis the individual also appear to them to be fraught with inner contradictions.

We believe that the individual must have the fullest scope of development and is entitled to utmost happiness. Therefore, the social and economic system should be so fashioned that the individual has full scope for happiness and development. Along with individual we have also recognized family. Mother and father have been regarded as gods (मातृ देवो भवः, पितृ देवो भवः matru devo bhav, pitru devo bhav). It was never suggested that because the entity of the individual has been recognized, he is free to abandon his parents and live away with his wife after marriage. Not only that the role of the individuals as well as that of the family has been defined and delimited, it has up for been further laid down that the individual should be given the sake of family. He can even be sacrificed. It has further been ordained that give up the whole world for the sake of the self (आत्मार्थ पृथिवीं त्यजेत atmarthe prithivim tyajet). Those influenced by western thought will apparently find these thoughts as inconsistent and incompatible. But we all know it is not so.

Individual and Society

The relationship of the individual with the nation-society has been similarly defined. But in the west, there appears a conflict between the two. A fierce controversy rages there over the question of the border between the individual and the society. If the individual is permitted bigger latitude the society is curtailed in the same ratio and if the society is allowed a wider range of control, the individual’s liberty is abridged in the same measure. Therefore, we witness a tug of war between the individual and society in the west.

But in Bharat, both have their due place. Neither is at loggerheads with the other. While the principle of individual’s right to complete happiness and development and also the society’s obligation to social discipline is demanded of the individual on the other. The individual is expected to strive for his contentment and development and simultaneously required to surrender to the will of the society, i.e to do his duty to the society unhesitatingly and voluntarily. The ultimate lies in his readiness to offer his happy and developed self at the feet of the society. Thus, we can infer that there exists a complete identification between individual freedom and social discipline to the great astonishment of the west.

Nationalism and Internationalism

What has been said above about man and society relationship is true of nationalism and internationalism. In the west, nationalism is a product of reaction. This is why there has been inherent disharmony between nationalism of two nations and between nationalism and internationalism. We have a nationalistic prayer saying “I am born in this good nation, give me happiness and glory”, (प्रादुर्भूतोऽस्मि राष्ट्रेऽस्मिन्, कीर्तिं वृद्धिं ददातु मे – श्री सूक्त pradur bhuvan surashtre asmin kirtim riddhim dadatu me). We find more similar prayers for the good of the world.

I recall here an occasion during the deliberations of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Conference), when a question was posed ‘how to define Hindu’. I cannot deal with the question here in depth but will touch upon one aspect of it where Hindu connotes nationalism, internationalism or even something beyond or more. The answer, however, was that when the whole world was uncivilized, world civilization was invariably identified with Hindu nationalism. But even that supreme position we never thought of exploiting other nations in the interests of our own. Our motto was कृण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम्Krinvanto Vishwamaryam”, i.e  we are Aryans and will make the world Aryan – we are cultured and will strive to share our culture and refinement with others and raise their level. This thought forms the base of our positive nationalism, which is a historical fact and which instead of creating clash between nationalism and internationalism, provides rudiments of internationalism. We have been averse to the idea that one who claims to be a nationalist cannot be an internationalist and conversely one who is an internationalist cannot be a nationalist. Again the westerners are amazed at it. They fail to grasp how one can be a nationalist and an internationalist both at the same time. But we see no contradiction in it.

Beyond Humanity

What lies next, is beyond the west’s comprehension. They, at best, can think of internationalism or humanity and not beyond. But our thought has transgressed this limit and dwells upon still further – the entire life. Only we have conceived life other than human life. There are some among Hindus who feed fish, ants and cows with sugar and flour. Why so? Because they believe all life is like their own. Not only that, even inanimate objects are regarded as part of creation of the ParamAtma like their own selves, and worship even stones for they see the creator in them, as God is omnipresent. Further, our people inquired of themselves ‘what is man’, ‘what are other beings’, ‘what all this animate, inanimate, sentient, insentient creation is’ and themselves realized later that all creation is one. But they, nevertheless, discovered that unity was different from the uniformity. We never believed that all must be uniform but did think that all are one and how strong this unity is, has been best expressed in, सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मSarvam Khalvidam Brahma” (Chandogya Upanishad), meaning, all this world is one.

Our religion and our country has the capacity to sustain the universe, the creation. Certain principles and ideals are eternal an ever-lasting and, therefore, immutable. Our religion with the force of these truthful and eternal principles has churned our best thoughts and ideas to suit changing situations and conditions. All apparent contradictions and discord have been harmonized to a great extent. If we think of one point or one thing alone many things appear conflicting. Sometimes we talk of Karma (action) and sometimes of sanyas. One one hand, we believe in Moksha and on the other in ‘all is worthless’. Sometimes, we declare धर्मस्य मूलं अर्थाम Dharmasyamulam arthah” (money is the root of Dharma). But all these apparently different and divergent views have converged into one coordinated system sometimes is unintelligible to an ordinary mind. Relying on Swami Vivekananda it can be safely said that our religion has the capacity to sustain the society and it has done so for hundreds of years. It is true that sufficient thought could not be given to what changes are warranted in the social set up over the last twelve or thirteen hundred years. Again, I would caution that there is no need to be alarmed at the word ‘change’ as changes have been effected in the society with the sanction of Dharma and philosophy from time to time. It has been said, तर्को प्रतिस्टा श्रुतियों विभिन्न रैको मुनीर यस्य वाचः प्रमाणंTarkoprathista shruthayom vibhinna, raiko munir yasya vachah pramanam”, i.e., Vedas differ, Smritis differ and words of no Muni should be treated as last word. Unfortunately, the lasting peaceful conditions which are required to this effect changes eluded us for these twelve or thirteen hundred years and some distortions and flaws crept into the system. Some surgery is undoubtedly need, but to quote Gandhiji ‘operate the diseased part but do not kill the patient;, Remove the defect but let the system work. Our society is sustaining itself for the last several centuries. We always had ageless and unchanging laws and changing provisions going hand in hand.

Now the question arises, should we accept different western ideologies as progressive, modern and better just because they are new. It would be fair to make comparative study of the two and take what is best in them. On comparison, we find that our Sanatan Dharma stands superior to western thought. It has many characteristics but in the present-day context the late Pt. Deendayal Upadhaya had said, “We stand for Integral Humanism“.

Modern Dharma

The difference in the two pictures is probably clear now. The principal feature of our धर्म,  (Dharma), as related to contemporary situation, has been termed, “Integral Humanism” by late Panditji. Sanatan Dharma more or less has the same take. It is this make which can ensure happiness and prosperity for the mankind through the ages.

A Clear Direction

Now we should also bear in mind that our way of thinking in this country is unique. The reason is that there lies fundamental difference in the basic concepts of Indian philosophy and the thoughts of non-Indian thinkers. Panditji very clearly pointed out that in the West, though has been given to various points, institutions and concepts in a compartmentalized manner. They have thought of the individual, family society and humanity as separate and non-interacting entities. When dealing with the individual, they lost sight of other organs of the society. The same applies to their thinking on family, society and humanity. This is inherent in their contemplation. They confine themselves to one organism. Let us take religion for instance. They have various faiths and sects, but one believes itself to be only right and others wrong. Now let us look at our own country. We too have numerous faiths and beliefs but here we say, “my path is right and so is yours too”. The west asserts “my religion alone leads to God”. This is the western metaphysics while Bharat says, “your religion also leads to God”. The same approach is found in socio-economic matters. They have concentrated on one entity as it has no correlation or inter-action with the other. For the sake of clearer understanding, I would add that in their system, the individual forms the center and around it are concentric circles representing family, community, nation and humanity respectively. As I have stated, this is a concentric arrangement in which individual is the center. The circles though surrounded the center, yet to have no independent existence and function and without interplay.Against this, our arrangement, which is not new but ancient, is an ever expanding spiral. It begins with the individual but goes on enlarging to family, family to society, society to nation, nation to humanity and ultimately to the universe or Srishti without ever de-linking with the center i.e, the individual.


The difference of the two systems is worthy of note. We dwelt upon the individual, family, community, society, nation and mankind. And so did they. But as I have submitted these two systems widely differ. They treated all as distinct though concentric entities with no inter-relation but we did not. So their though remained exclusive.In our system, on the other hand, one entity originates from the other and expands into the next and thus forming an infinite spiral with no inner conflicts and no tensions. Individual nowhere comes into clash with family and family with community and so on and so forth. Not only that one is not opposed to the other, we have gone a step further, we believe one is complementary to the other. I would further illustrate my point. An infant knows little about anything but himself. As he grows he recognizes his parents, his brothers, sisters and the people around him and thus develops the awareness of family, but this awareness does not negate his ‘I’. To him, ‘I’ and the family both are a reality. He grows and develops his mind and becomes capable of action. He then forms a community with people of like mind and like action and becomes indistinguishable and inseparable from his community. By and by he develops an identity with the nation and becomes one with it. And at last comes the state f Sanyas, सन्यास (renunciation) when he realizes that all humanity is one, nay, entire cosmos is one and he is not only the citizen of the world but of the universe.

So from an infact ‘I’ (aham), to the highest attainment, rather renunciation as a sanyasin – is a long journey in the realm of self-cum-social consciousness of man. As his consciousness grows, his attachment with the old (small) entity, though a reality, starts wearing and that with the new one – the bigger one – becomes stronger. The last and the ultimate, i.e., “all this universe is Brahma (God)” is reached when one discards everything material (takes to Sanyas).

No Chaos

In other words, all units or entities are realities of life. As our consciousness grows, our vision widens. As all are realities, one is not at cross purpose with the other. None can be denied and none discarded. This is like the seed, sprouting into plant, plant growing into a tree and tree blossoming and bearing fruits. The seed, the plant, the flowers and the fruit all look different. None appears to have any relation with the other. To some, it may appear that there is chaos in the nature. But is it so? Not at all. All this is the process of evolution, growth and development. There is no conflict between the seed and the tree. The tiniest and the tallest entities, though have their independent existence, together form a single integrated whole. Bharatiya way of thinking is akin to this.

Why Integrated Life

We have laid enough emphasis on individual, the smallest unit, and rightly so. We conceive of an individual so organized and integrated as is unknown to the west. There the stress is on material progress. As you know, the U.S.A is considered to be the most advanced nation and country. They have attained a high level of prosperity but is it not surprising that common people there should be deprived of happiness and contentment? Their life seems plagued with contradictions, strife, unrest highest crime incidence, suicides and things like that. There appears tremendous increase in high blood pressure, heart ailments and criminal tendencies. The country which has the capacity to buy the whole world could not buy mental peace. So we are constrained to think, “What after all is our goal?” – Happiness which is enduring and real.

Europe, in spite of limitless acquisition is groping for happiness. Christ rightly said that, even if one has the whole world and yet loses his soul he is the loser. The west has reached the moon but has lost its happiness. On the contrary, our smallest unit, the individual is more organized and integrated. He is not divided or torn. An American psychologist has said of American society, ‘our roads are full of crowds of isolated, solitary and self alienated humans’. When they are so isolated within themselves, what use they can be to the world? There is no harmony between the individual and the society. The ill lies in considering man a physical and economic being. They think that once man is given money and material, comfort, happiness and peace will follow. But this expectation is belied. This is why highest standards of living failed to bring in its wake the much sought after happiness. This flows from the defect that they always thought in isolation, in bits, so to say, and never, thought of  various facets of human nature and its needs except that man is an economic being.


We admit that man is also an economic being and there be no doubt about it. His needs of food, sleep (aahaar, nidra, bhaya, maithunam cha), fear and sex must be satisfied. But this was not enough and we did not stop here. We thought that man was something more than economic being. He is a physical, psychological, political, social, and religious being too.

आहार निद्रा भय मैथुनं च सामान्यमेतत् पशुभिर्नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेष: धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिः समानाः ॥

(आहार, निद्रा, भय और मैथुन – ये तो इन्सान और पशु में समान है;  
इन्सान में विशेष केवल धर्म है, अर्थात् बिना धर्म के लोग पशुतुल्य है)

As I have said, his individuality has many facets. Therefore, if all aspects of human nature are not attended to in entirety, he will be deprived of the state of real happiness and contentment. In our wholesome thinking while we did not neglect man’s needs and desires and conceded that they should be satisfied, we also imposed reasonable restraints. It is not true that only Freud gave serious thought to sex. In this country, sex has been treated in all seriousness, an indispensible force. In Chapter 3, Sloka 42 of the Gita, it has been said:

इन्द्रियाणि पराण्याहुरिन्द्रियेभ्यः परं मनः ।
मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्यो बुद्धेः परतस्तु सः ॥

( इन्द्रियोंको स्थूल शरीरसे पर (श्रेष्ठ) कहते हैं; इन्द्रियोंसे श्रेष्ठ मन है;
मनसे भी पर बुद्धि है और जो बुद्धिसे भी पर है वह (आत्मा) है )

… which means senses are above desires, mind is above sense, intellect above mind and soul (आत्मन, atman) is indescribable and above all. Some scholars have interpreted सः this sloka as Kama, the sexual desire. But even if this is agreed, sex has not been left unbridled and unrestrained. It has been subjected to restriction. Bhagwan Sri Krishna himself claims, “I am Kama”, but at the same time he also says, “I am Kama and Kama should be satisfied but not against Dharma”.

Life based on Dharma

Like sex we admit money has a place in life. All should be able to satisfy their material needs. One need not have to worry night and day about how to fill his belly. He should have enough leisure to devote it to literary, artistic and cultural pursuits and also to God if he so desires. Thus, while taking full cognizance of money and sex, man has been cautioned against their use beyond a reasonable limit, lest it may spell his doom and disintegrate the society. Our ancient seers were very conscious of the possible pitfalls and evolved a philosophy which incorporated some eternal laws and some universal laws. They also perceived and tested them. They did not merely search, codify or compile such laws. The sum total of the perceived laws – eternal and universal – made to prevent the individual from falling, the society from degeneration and for the highest development and progress of the individual is known as Dharma. But Dharma alone is not enough. Money and sex were not ignored. They were, however, sandwiched between Dharma on one end and Moksha (‘salvation’) on the other. Thus was evolved a quartet of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha for guiding the human endeavor and enterprise. This being coordinated, organized and integrated system did not divide or split the individual but gave free choice of his life’s goals and ideals best suited to his physical, mental, intellectual and spiritual capacities and capabilities, keeping his individuality intact.

What is Integrated Humanism?

It must always be remembered that unless various ingredients of the individual and individuality are organized, an organized society remains a far cry. In fact this organized state is our starting point where from we march towards the individual, family, nation, humanity and the entire universe, i.e., all animate and inanimate creation. And this is integral humanism, we will find that it not only obviates conflict between various entities, but establishes that one emanates from the other as part of a process of development in which the smaller entity though autonomous in its area, merges into the bigger one. So far as the human society is concerned, its sequence can be from individual to family and family to nation and nation-state and then to one world state on the basis of integral humanism. In the realm of thought the highest level would be the principle of non-dualism Advait.

Goals of Integral Humanism

The world state or government as conceived under integral humanism will be quite different from the once conceived by the communists. Their world will be mono-centric and monolithic, while ours will be multi-centric and multilithic. The communist system will be sustained by regimented thinking and will display uniformity, but in our world system no such uniformity is foreseen. Every nation will be free to develop according to its own genius. Every nation will consider itself an organ of the body – the world government – in the same way as an individual subordinates himself of his own free will his entire acquisitions and achievements to the society at large. We will be one with the whole mankind and whatever material progress we attain through our best efforts, its ripe and sweet fruits will be offered at the feet of the Humanity. This is how a nation while remaining free and sovereign, will progress and will be bound with others by good-will and cooperation, flowing from its commitment to the spirit of universality. A world government on this model will be after Pt. Deendayalji’s dream of Integral Humanism, followed by non-dualism Advait, in the world of thought which is logical consequence. In the end, I would reassure that if we hold fast to the thoughts and ideals, propounded by him, we should be able to dispel the confusion in the midst of which the present generation finds itself confounded.

(Translation of a Speech by Shri Dattopant Bapurao Thengadi, organised by Deendayal Upadhyaya Smarak Siksha Samiti at Kanpur in February, 1970).

(Courtesy: Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism: documents, interpretations, comparisons, New Delhi: Deendayal Research Institute, 1992, Integral Humanism – A Study, pg:70-84, Edited by Sri.Devendra Swarup). 

(Courtesy: Sri.Raghunandan, Dakshina Madhya Kshetriya Samyojak, Pragnya Pravah).

For further reading, please refer the link : Deendayal Upadhyaya – The Seer of Integral Humanism