1
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCING THE WRITER AND THE THEME
It would be half-truth to say that Rohinton Mistry has created a niche for
himself among the writers of the Indian diaspora. In fact, his fictional works
have a grace and a caliber which firmly place him alongside leading novelists
of the world. He is often compared to Charles Dickens for his compassionate
treatment of the other. Add to this his command of the language as also the
aptness of imagery, all of which makes one shows him as a scholarly writer.
Mistry was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1952. He graduated with a
degree in Mathematics from the University of Bombay in 1974 and migrated
to Canada with his wife the following year, settling in Toronto, where he
worked as a bank clerk and at the same time studied English and Philosophy,
part-time, at the University of Toronto. In this way, he got his second degree
in 1982.
Mistry wrote his first short story, ‘One Sunday’, in 1983 which won him first
prize in the Canadian Hart House Literary Contest. He won the same award
the following year for his short story ‘Auspicious Occasion’. It was followed
in 1985 by the Annual Contributors’ Award from the Canadian Fiction
Magazine, and afterwards, with the aid of a Canada Council grant, he left his
job to become a full-time writer.
His early stories were published in a number of Canadian magazines, and his
short-story collection, Tales from Firozsha Baag, was first published in
Canada in 1987 as Swimming Lessons and Other Stories from Firozsha Baag
(later published in the UK in 1992). He is the author of three novels: Such a
Long Journey (1991), the story of a bank clerk who is unwittingly involved in
2
a political fraud committed by the topmost authorities, A Fine Balance
(1996), set during the State of Emergency in India of the 1970s, and Family
Matters (2002), which tells the story of an elderly Parsi widower living in
Bombay with his step-children. Such a Long Journey and A Fine Balance
were both shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction, and Family
Matters was shortlisted for the 2002 Man Booker Prize for Fiction. His latest
work The Scream, a long story rather than a novel has not yet entered the
public domain.
Mistry has won till date a number of prizes such as Hart House Literary
Contest (first prize) for his short stories, ‘One Sunday’ (1983), ‘Auspicious
Occasion’ (1984), Annual Contributors’ Prize, Canadian Fiction Magazine
(1985), Canadian Governor General’s Literary Award for Fiction (Canada)
for 'Such A Long Journey' (1991), Commonwealth Writers Prize (Overall
Winner, Best Book) for 'Such A Long Journey' (1992), Giller Prize (Canada)
for 'A Fine Balance' (1995), Commonwealth Writers Prize (Overall Winner,
Best Book) for ‘A Fine Balance’ (1996), Los Angeles Times Book Prize for
‘A Fine Balance’ (1997), Kiriyama Pacific Rim Book Prize for ‘Family
Matters’ (2002) and Timothy Findley Award (Writers’ Trust of Canada) in
2006.
Besides, his works have been shortlisted for several prestigious awards such
as Booker Prize for ‘Such A Long Journey’ (1991), ‘A Fine Balance’ (1996),
‘Family Matters’ (2002) and International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award for
‘A Fine Balance’ (1997), Irish Time International Fiction Prize for ‘A Fine
Balance’ (1997), James Tait Black Memorial Prize for Fiction for ‘Family
Matters’ (2002), Timothy Findley Award (Writers’ Trust of Canada) in 2006.
Mistry’s fiction is rooted in the streets of Bombay, the city he left behind for
Canada at the age of twenty-three. This ‘imaginary homeland’ has inevitably
3
led to comparisons with Salman Rushdie, another Bombay-born author, now
based abroad. However, the differences between the two men are perhaps as
compelling as their similarities. Take Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children (1981)
and Mistry’s A Fine Balance (1996), both of which are set in Bombay during
the administration of Indira Ghandi and the state of emergency. Where
Rushdie’s novel gravitates toward the Muslim middle classes, Mistry’s seems
more at home among the Parsi community and the poor people in general.
Rushdie’s magic realism (what Mistry refers to in his latest novel, Family
Matters, as ‘magic-realist midnight muddles’) is Realism with a capital ‘R’ in
A Fine Balance. Beyond such differences however, both novels have a
tendency to collapse the distinctions between public and private worlds. Both
share a sharp wit. Both (whether it is Rushdie’s Booker of Bookers or
Mistry’s Booker shortlisted) have enjoyed a good deal of critical and
commercial success.
Tales from Firozsha Baag (1987), Mistry’s first collection of stories, marked
the arrival of a prodigious talent. Published in the US as Swimming Lessons,
the collection contains eleven interrelated short stories. The tales detail the
day-to-day lives of the residents of a decrepit apartment block in Bombay
named Firozsha Baag. Mistry’s affectionate; thumb-nail sketches bring
together the lives of miserly Rustomji, the deranged Jaakaylee and Pesi, who
is able to look up girls’ skirts with the aid of his torch. In a very interesting
manner, Mistry has been able to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of
relationships among the residents of the Baag. However, the underlying
realism does not do away with the subtle sentimentality.
This is a pure and simple study of the Parsi community at the neighbourhood
and diasporic levels. It also studies the individual lives of Parsis who happen
to lead lonely or two-some lives. The problems that beset the Parsees
4
individually and collectively have been studied with the eye of a sociologist,
to say the least.
Such a Long Journey (1991), Mistry’s first novel, won numerous literary
awards when it was first published and has since been adapted for a film. The
novel is set in 1971 during the time of the Indo-Pakistan war. Its protagonist
is no conventional hero. Gustad Noble is a bank clerk and a family man, a
vulnerable figure, whose world is still haunted by the war with China in 1962.
The fate of Gustad’s family is closely bound up with that of the subcontinent
during a time of crisis and turmoil. His daughter’s illness and his son’s refusal
to go to college are events for which the reader sympathises with him. When
Gustad receives a parcel and a request to launder money for an old friend, the
event’s ramifications are at once personal and political. Henceforth start
travails of this simple and, as the name suggests, noble-at-heart unheroic hero,
who surprisingly, like the true hero of traditional classics, emerges unscathed
and with his essential goodness intact.
A Fine Balance (1995), critically Mistry’s most successful work to date, tells
the story of four characters (Maneck, Dina, Ishvar and Omprakash) and the
impact of the infamous state of emergency on them. One of the most
successful aspects of this book is its carefully crafted prose: “The morning
train jampacked with passengers slowed to a crawl, then lurched forward
suddenly, as though to resume full speed. The train’s brief deception jolted its
riders. The bulge of humans hanging out of the doorway distended perilously,
like a soap bubble at its limit.” This intricate opening paragraph, which is
typical of the precise prose of A Fine Balance throughout, helps propel the
novel forward through what is one of the most memorable portraits of postIndependence India ever written. A Fine Balance is the story of
impoverishment of the ordinary people. As always, in an unjust order, the
5
powerful and the influential win the day. The message sent out in this novel is
terse and clear: the deep-rooted contentment in the Indian psyche is unique.
Whether one likes it or not, but things just go on in this way here. A strong
indictment of the functioning of Indian leaders as this book is, it has
justifiably aroused strong reactions.
Mistry’s latest novel, Family Matters (2002), is based in Bombay once again.
Whereas his first two novels were set in the 1970s and were essentially
‘historical’ fictions, Family Matters depicts contemporary Bombay and is set
in the 1990s. At the centre of the book is an old man, a Parsi with Parkinson’s
disease. Nariman Vakeel is a retired academic whose illness places renewed
strains on family relations. The professor rightly compares himself to King
Lear at one point. A widower with skeletons in his closet, Nariman’s
memories of the past expose the reader to earlier moments in the history of
the city and the nation. The novel moves across three generations of the same
family. In Family Matters we have the familiar slippage between public and
private worlds. Similarly the lives of the residents of ‘Chateau Felicity’
(Nariman’s former residence) and ‘Pleasant villa’ (where he is forced to move
by his scheming step daughter) recall the world of Firozsha Baag. Where the
earlier novels tended towards a decisive closure, the epilogue of this novel
leaves the reader wanting for more.
Recently, Mistry came out with a novella of around forty pages. The Scream
is a single story by Rohinton Mistry and to date his shortest book. Set in a
Mumbai apartment, The Scream is narrated by a man at the end of his life,
who is angry at the predicament of old age, at his isolation from his family
and from a world that no longer understands him. He rails and raves in ways
that are both hilarious and moving, and which touch us with recognition. It
reminds one of the writer’s third novel Family Matters, in which Professor
6
Nariman Vakeel conforms to this description. Naturally, this work seems
steeped in Mistry’s humanistic colours. The Scream also contains artwork
based on the story by the celebrated Canadian artist Tony Urquhart. Since this
work has not been released publicly, it has not been included in the present
study.
A common thread that runs through all his works is the relationship between
individual and society. Within the boundaries set for an artist, Mistry has
pointed out the inadequacies and weaknesses of our social and political order.
He has lashed out against the evil influence of this order on the individual
who is always at the receiving end. The treatment meted out to ordinary
individuals in his novels shows Mistry’s humanistic leanings. It is not for
nothing that some critics have likened him to Charles Dickens.
Thinking up the theme of humanism, we find that the Chambers 20 th Century
Dictionary describes ‘humanism’ as a ‘literary culture: any system which puts
human interests and the mind of man paramount, rejecting the supernatural,
belief in a god etc.’ The term is most often used to describe a literary and
cultualmovement that spread through western Europe in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries.
In order to appreciate the concept of Humanism, it would be proper to remind
ourselves of its origin. The thinking about humanism can be traced back to
ancient philosophers of both the western and the eastern hemispheres. Taking
up first the western philosophers, one must begin with Protagoras, the preSocratic Greek philosopher, whose dictum “Man is the measure of all things”
can still be taken as the measure of humanism. Probably, for this reason, some
scholars even dub humanism as Neo-protagoreanism. During Socrates’ time,
the Sophists indulged in casuistry and encouraged scepticism. Socrates tried
to correct this attitude and emphasized knowledge of the human self through
7
the dictum, “Know Thyself”. He underlined the importance of objective
standards of truth which was not incompatible with individualism of the
Sophists. In this way, he also laid the foundation of knowledge that had direct
relationship to man.
His disciple Plato laid stress on reason in his ethical teaching. Aristotle also
considered reason as the highest attribute and glory of man. He wanted to
consider man neither as angel nor as devil but simply as a human being. In the
ancient Greek literature produced by Homer, man is shown as struggling
against the cosmic forces called destiny. Another Greek thinker Sophocles
eulogized human being when he declared, “Wonders are many, and none is
more wonderful than man.” The ancient Greeks, thus, thought that “To
understand his own morphology as well as that of the universe is man’s
highest function, and leads to the state of well-being which is virtue. This is
the apogee of humanism – which, for the Greek, was an attitude and habit of
mind rather than a philosophical system or cult.” 1
After the decline of the Greco-Roman civilization, medieval attitude overtook
most of Europe. Christianity found man a sinner who had to repent and put
his trust in Jesus before he could think his life a success. Asceticism was
preached by Christian monks and clergy even as they themselves did not
always practise what they preached.
The Renaissance in Europe provided a gateway to the Greek thought on
humanism. It all began with a political development. When Turkey attacked
Constantinople in 1453, the Greek scholars settled there had to flee with their
books to Italy where they settled in cities like Florence and Milan. They
revealed to the world the rich treasure of the ancient Greek classics. Their
interaction with the Italian scholars was further responsible for unearthing of
the native ancient Latin literature. The ancient classics of Greece were replete
8
with a humanistic spirit. Thus, a political development was responsible for
interest in ancient classics of Greece and Rome and the consequent spread of
the humanistic spirit. Rather than remaining cocooned within their limited
thinking sphere marked by Biblical theology, the continental scholars showed
a liberal approach towards the ‘new’ knowledge. Primarily, the dominating
element in the finest classical culture was aesthetic. But its influence
overflowed into the religious field also. It is believed that “the liberal view
which developed as a consequence of this interest enabled man of the
fifteenth century to become more human which means more humane. Hence
the classics came to be known as ‘Humanities’ and the scholar who studied
them as a ‘humanist’ in contrast with a ‘scholastic’.” 2 Certain qualities of man
as celebrated in the ancient Greek literature like reason, balance, justice and
dignity cast their influence on them.
The ancient Greek literature was suffused with glorification of human being.
This was something new for the Christian European mainland. Literature so
far had been oriented toward Christian theology. It sang of glory to God and
His ways. It did not place man at a high pedestal. The medieval Christianity
preached asceticism as the only worthwhile lifestyle. But the ancient Greek
literature preached this-worldliness and if it talked of gods and goddesses,
these lived in harmony with the humans in remote past. Stories abounded of
god-human contacts and affairs, much like the stories of Mahabharata in
India. In the Greek scheme of things, a human Leda could attract the chief
god Zeus who took the shape of a swan to requite his passion for her. The
Greeks’ love of sports and plays was evident from the large stadiums and
amphitheatres built long ago by them. “A new vista was opened in which man
could realize himself here and now, in this world, and within the limits set by
birth and death.”3 When Renaissance was ushered in Europe and these stories
9
of human prowess and prestige circulated, the devout Christians had to revise
their stand and undertake Reformation. The emergence of Christian
humanism was a result of a compromise. It was the result of a stage where the
Christian clergy also could not resist the temptation of reading and enjoying
heathen literature and aspired to produce literature along classical lines.
Thus, it was felt that in literature, human interest must reign supreme.
According to a critic, “Among the various themes that became popular during
the Renaissance owing to the impact of humanism were the ideals of liberty
and love, the ideals of perfect courtier, gentleman, citizen, or magistrate, as
also the centrality of man in the universe and his responsibility to set up an
ideal society informed by the humanistic values.” 4 The attribution of human
features to God, known as anthropomorphism, seems the outcome of growing
clout of humanism. The poet Milton’s magnum opus Paradise Lost is found
by many critics as supporting the Satan rather than God. His work Tenure of
Kings and Magistrates (1649) declares, “All men were naturally born free”.
The qualities of liberalism, critical and rational habits of mind and the shift of
attention from heaven to earth appeal to the modern man also. Thus,
Renaissance humanism with its stress on classicism preached the concept of a
perfect man.
The function of literature was deemed to be making of good men and good
citizens. Under the impact of Aristotle’s works -- Poetics, Ethics and Politics
-- the moral and didactic element in the literature of the Renaissance period
became prominent. “Believing that emotions and imagination were the best
channels for moving people to love and acquire public and private virtues, the
Renaissance writers practised in their writings the idea of delightful teaching.
Thus, to teach and delight remained the cornerstone of the Renaissance
classicism or the Renaissance aestheticism.” 5 The moral teaching was
10
however secular in essence rather than religious. A lot of biographical
literature was produced with the avowed aim of bringing to light the moral
qualities of the characters.
The impact of Renaissance in the field of religion needs to be emphasized
here because to God-fearing Christians of Europe, ancient Greek and Roman
literatures were basically heretical. But the animosity between the Church and
the Renaissance was short-lived. As Legouis Cazamian point out, “A
rebellion against the spiritual authority was first incited by the Reformation,
which was soon afterwards the enemy of this ally, the Renaissance.” 6 Italian
Renaissance also embodied rationalistic revolt of individual against
Christianity. They hit out at dogmas and questioned priests’ practices like
selling of pardons etc.. The priests, to begin with, were horrified at the
sensuality of this literature. They felt the stress on rationalism will destroy
religious faith. But soon meeting grounds like Plato’s conception of poetry
were located. After all, the Stoics echoed Christian ideals, but to the humanist,
the Epicureans had a better appeal due to their skepticism which called for a
liberal approach.
Cicero and Seneca, being moralists, appealed to the clergy. Virtues like
justice, fortitude and prudence had to be hailed. The wonderful stories and
poems had an attraction of their own for the well-read churchmen which they
could not resist for long. Reformation in England also got a fillip from the
political authority of King Henry VIII because of certain personal reasons. As
a cumulative effect of all these factors, we find the emergence of a Christian
humanism. Defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, as “a
philosophy advocating the self-fulfilment of man within the framework of
Christian principles”, it is clear that the more human-oriented faith is largely a
11
product of the Renaissance and can, for that reason, be subsumed under the
broad category of Renaissance Humanism.
In the eighteenth century, there was stress on making a gentleman of a man –
one who spoke the courtly language and behaved well in public places. He
was the perfect man who had impeccable manners in keeping with the trend
in society. Primarily, it meant the model presented by the upper class society.
Some great figures of nineteenth century like Auguste Comte, Mathew
Arnold and Thomas Paine worked to further the cause of humanism. Arnold,
as we all know, was most concerned about culture. His worst nightmare was
the final overthrow of culture with its Greek ‘sweetness and light’, by the
ignorant armies of anarchy and darkness. Comte toyed with the idea of
Religion of Humanity. He wanted an atheistic religion based on humanistic
principles, though it was to have room for liturgy and doctrines. It also “takes
altruism and action for the sake of all humanity as its guiding principle.” 7
George Eliot, the leading novelist of the time, was not impressed by it; she
favoured an ethical religion which could be substituted for a discredited
Christianity. The German philosopher Frederic Nietzsche put forth the
concept of superman who could be the answer to the situation arising out of
‘death of God’. The superman, as the ultimate or complete man, through sheer
will to power, had to rise above despair to be the bearer of a radical freedom.
However, Nietzsche’s infamous support to anti-Semitism made a dent in his
humanist image.
The twentieth century witnessed shake-up of old beliefs like never before.
There were questions raised with regard to the nature of man – man, who was
considered a rational being since the age of enlightenment. The two world
wars were beyond the comprehension of the humanists. The atomic
decimation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Holocaust, as also the
12
indiscriminate slaughter, the incomparable brutality, the humiliation inflicted
on prisoners of war and even the ordinary citizenry came as a great shock. As
the details of cruelty emerged in the form of films, photographs and
documentation, the horror of it all sat uncomfortably with the old concepts
about man. Faced with this reality, the human nature cried to be re-defined.
But was man really irrational?
There is the other angle to look at the situation:
But for all the Wagnerian and gothic primitivism in
which the Third Reich chose to project its public
personality, there was no escaping the recognition that
the systematic purging of Jews, homosexuals and other
racial impurities was the result not of some
inexplicable descent into irrational, atavistic barbarity
but of a supremely modern rationality. The cool
framing of objectives, the logical planning of complex
systems, the orderly deployment of technology and
resources: all these testify to a piece of demographic
engineering as measured in its symmetry, as eloquent
in its appalling fashion of individual genius and
collective enterprise as the Parthenon itself. 8
Karl Marx, the revolutionary thinker of the twentieth century was of the view
that the ideal of universal man was pure rhetoric: “The heady rhetoric of
‘Universal Man’ that accompanied the revolutions of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries tended to give way, once its ideological work was done,
to the promotion of a rather narrower and more pragmatic set of class
interests.”9 Humanism has been denounced as an ideological smokescreen for
the oppressive mystifications of modern society and culture, the
marginalization and oppression of the multitudes of human beings in whose
name it pretends to speak. The Marxians are not impressed with the dialectic
of enlightenment.
13
Marx wrote:
Communism is the positive supersession of private
property as human self estrangement, and hence the
true appropriation of the human essence through and
for man; it is the complete restoration of man to
himself as a social, i.e. human, being. […] This
communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals
humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals
naturalism, it is the genuine resolution of the conflict
between man and nature, and between man and man,
the true resolution of the conflict between existence
and being.10
In the twentieth century, scientific humanism or naturalistic humanism has
had great appeal. It rejects supernaturalism of all types and holds that man is a
wholly natural creature whose well-being depends upon his own efforts
unaided by any transcendental support. This view also finds support in the
philosophical doctrine of existentialism which again has remained a potent
philosophy throughout twentieth century and continues to hold sway even
now. J.P. Sartre is known for existentialist humanism.
Scientific humanism, then, rejects any vision of immortality and is content
with the life here and now. It does not believe in God or religion. According
to the famous naturalistic humanist Corliss Lamont:
Humanism is the viewpoint that man has but one life
to lead and should make the most of it in terms of
creative work and happiness that human happiness is
its own justification and requires no sanction or
support from supernatural sources; that in the form of
heavenly gods or immortal heaves, does not exist; and
that human beings, using their own intelligence and
cooperating with one another, can build an enduring
citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth. 11
Based on naturalistic humanism is Evolutionary humanism propounded by
Julian Huxley. His work The Humanist Frame (1961) supports secular and
14
rational decencies of contemporary civilization. Evolutionary humanism is
primarily based, as its name suggests, on astute understanding and
interpretation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. It views all reality as a
process of evolution of which man is a part. He is unique because he is the
latest product of evolution and is conscious of the entire range of evolution.
This school also believes in the unity of body and mind which are both
products of evolution. Man is considered responsible for carrying on this
process of evolution. He has for his support the tools of modern thought,
vision and science.
Religious humanists maintain that most human beings have personal and
social needs that can only be met by religion which is taken in a functional
sense. What we mean by ‘functional’ here is what role actually plays in the
live of the people, individually and collectively. Religion is viewed as that
which serves such needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical
world view. They may embrace some form of theism, deism or
supernaturalism, without necessarily being allied with organized religion or
even if allied, does not look at religion as a necessary source for moral values.
The central position of human beings in humanist philosophy goes with a
humane morality. The religious humanists feel that secular humanism is so
coldly logical and rejects the full emotional experience that makes humans
truly human.
The religious humanists agree that most human beings have personal and
social needs that can only be met by religion. There is hardly any mystique
attached to religion by the humanists. They take it in functional sense in that
they judge it by the role it actually plays in the lives of the people. If prayer
helps one to rise high in the realm of consciousness then it is welcome.
15
Thus religious humanism has two-fold function:
To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a
basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals,
methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a
rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense
of purpose. To serve social needs, Humanist religious
communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and
many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of
belonging, an institutional setting for the moral
education of children, special holidays shared with
like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the
performance of ideologically consistent rites of
passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age
celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity for
affirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historical
context for one’s ideas. 12
Doctrines may differ and may be replaced by new doctrines, but the purpose
religion serves for people remains the same. They do not feel that one should
have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith
context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in
traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.
While these developments were taking place on the European continent, in
America, Irving Babbit instituted New Humanism, according to which the
extremes of science and religion were rejected. It focussed on human reason
and freedom of will in artistic, ethical and intellectual pursuits and prescribed
voluntary restraint by an inner enlightened and rationalist self.
It might be mentioned here that in modern humanism, a debate has always
raged around whether it is philosophy or religion that forms the core of
modern humanism. Those who believe in philosophy are called Secular
Humanists and those who believe in religion are called Religious Humanists.
Both of them, however, share the same worldview and basic principles. This
16
is borne out by the fact that both signed the famous Humanist Manifestos No.
I and II. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the
philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.
It would be seen thus that humanism has been an important issue throughout
the history of mankind and the place of religion has been very significant in it.
Almost every philosopher or thinker has had to express his opinions on it. The
pragmatist William James’ observation should be relevant here: “Science,
truth, morality, religion and all else must, according to James, have human
significance, or conversely men’s interest in values and ideas, especially
morals and religions, can only be explained and justified in terms of what is
humane in them. James, for instance, finds much to value in experiences of
saintliness or mysticism, when these experience change the life of a person
for the good, and when their influence on many others perpetuates these good
works.”13
Since 1970s, critique of western culture has been on the rise so that even
humanism has been caught in its cross-fire. There is a totally different
approach towards the human individual. Instead of placing value on
individual self, he is seen as a product of socio-cultural conditions which
include a newer understanding of language also:
Humanist ideology depends upon a fundamental
assumption about the primacy of the autonomous and
unified individual. For humanism, ‘man is at the
centre of meaning and action; the world is oriented
around the individual. Each individual is different,
each possesses a unique subjectivity; yet also,
paradoxically, each shares a common human nature.
The combination of unique individuality and common
human essence cohere around the idea of a sovereign
self, whose essential core of being transcends the
outward signs of environmental and social
conditioning. Post-structuralism has sought to disrupt
17
this man-centred view of the world, arguing that the
subject, and that sense of unique subjectivity itself, is
constructed in language and discourse; and rather
than being fixed and unified, the subject is split,
unstable or augmented.14
Newly emerged groups like feminists and ethnic minorities have found
humanism an instrument of existing structures of power. According to the
postcolonialists, humanism is a highly contentious term. They take up the
origin of the term and point out flaws there. According to them, this was an
educational program called studia humanitatis and was built upon a series of
curricular exclusions, especially of those branches of study associated with
medieval scholasticism like logic, mathematics, natural sciences, astronomy,
medicine, law and theology. The quarrel between humanism and
scholasticism was the quarrel between the ‘science of man’ and the ‘science
of nature’. In this, the humanists claimed the moral high ground and looked
down upon the base concerns of non-literary disciplines. Even though the
humanists claimed to be representative of the human race, they had excluded
categories of people like doctors and mechanics, whose trade and knowledge
of subject were considered lowly in comparison with liberal arts.
Again, whereas feminist intervention into the humanities academy posed a
challenge to the normative and the Universalist assumptions of gender-biased
knowledge systems, the Postcolonial studies, apart from critiquing the
foundational discourse, directed its attack on the cultural hegemony of
European knolwedges in order to highlight the epistemological value and
agency of the non-European world. The attempt was to highlight the
exclusions made by the canonical knowledge systems which donned the
euphemistic title of ‘humanism’ and also to recover the marginalized
knowledges silenced by the former. Postcolonial studies claims that the entire
18
field of the humanities is vitiated by a compulsion to claim a spurious
universality. In a political move, it has produced ‘major’ or dominant
knowledges Thus, it would seem, the clash between traditional humanism and
the new humanism centred round epistemological grounds.
In this, the claim about disinterestedness effectively conceals the
collaboration between knowledge and dominant interests and even bolsters
the state’s fallacious claim to universality. Humanism has almost always
accompanied and supported the emergence of unified and centralised nation
states. This finding is no different from that of Marx and Engels when they
argue that the ruling class is compelled to present its interests as the common
interests of all members of society, in an ideal form of universality, as the
only rational, universally valid ones. As a proof of this collusion between
state and humanism, it can be cited that humanism has flourished whenever
these established interests have been under threat or in need of affirmation.
However, Foucault, while appreciating the insurrection of subjugated
knowledges, warns against the danger of simply seeking to invert the existing
hierarchy of knowledge, for that would constitute yet another hierarchy. This
certainly calls for utmost caution. Deleuze and Guattari suggest in this
connection that these subjugated knowledges and literature must resolutely
shun the desire to become ‘major’ or canonical, instead they should dream of
‘a becoming-minor’. Now, “Although the precise implications of this project
remain unclear, we might say that all ‘minor’ knowledges need to retain the
memory of their subjugation and deterritorialisation and, therefore, of their
creative affinity with other fields of ‘non-culture’.”15 It is clear, therefore, that
the main objection of the New Humanists was the lack of total representation
on the part of the old humanist school.
19
The critics of postcolonial theorizing also point out the unsustainability of the
preoccupations of postcolonial academy and the concerns arising from and
relevant to postcolonial realities. What is more, some critics find their own
trade as casting a deleterious effect on society. Gayatri Spivak opines that
“the recent concessions to marginality studies within the first world
metropolitan academy inadvertently serve to identify, confirm and thereby
exclude certain cultural formations as chronically marginal.” 16 The
celebratory ‘third-worldism’ of the postcolonial studies, Spivak cautions, may
well perpetuate real social and political oppressions which rely upon rigid
distinctions between the’ centre’ and the ‘margin’.
Besides, the anti-postcolonial critics foreground the dichotomy between the
wholly deconstructive predicament of postcolonial intellectuals and the social
and economic predicament of those whose lives are literally on the margins of
the metropolis. The merely academic interest of such criticism has been noted
with disapproval by critics like Arif Dirlik and Aijaz Ahmad in particular.
Whatever the claims and counter-claims about humanism, one thing on which
all seem to agree is that humanism is meant to upstage the human being. It
does not hold any other ideology superior to the one concerned chiefly about
the interests of human being. He is to be placed at the centre of all constructs.
This universe is for his sake and if any action is detrimental to the interest of
man, then it is fit to be shunned.
In this respect, the Humanist Manifesto, whose various editions appeared
from time to time, is a pointer in the direction of what exactly is understood
by Humanism. It is part of the ongoing Humanist movement across the world.
What distinguishes this movement from other aspects discussed so far is that
political and economic aspects of contemporary human life have also been
commented upon in it.
20
Humanist
Manifesto is
the
title
of
three manifestos laying
out
a
Humanist worldview. They are the original Humanist Manifesto (1933), often
referred to as Humanist Manifesto I), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973),
and ’Humanism and Its Aspirations‘ (2003, also known as Humanist
Manifesto III). The Manifesto originally arose from religious Humanism,
though secular Humanists also signed it.
The central theme of all three manifestos, according to Wikipedia, is the
elaboration of a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily
include belief in any personal deity or “higher power”, although the three
differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition. Each one has been
signed at its launch by prominent figures who are in general agreement with
its principles.
The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in
1933 primarily by Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Braggand and was
published with thirty-four signatories including philosopher John Dewey.
Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new ‘religion‘, and
referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace
previous religions based on the so-called supernatural revelation. The
document outlines a fifteen-point belief system. The first point is that the
religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Second, humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged
as a result of a continuous process. The third point holds an organic view of
life. The humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be
rejected. The fourth point is that humanism recognizes that man’s religious
culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are
the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural
environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular
21
culture is largely moulded by that culture and humanism asserts that the
nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any
supernatural or comic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does
not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that
the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by
means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human
needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of scientific
spirit and method is the fifth point.
We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and
the several varieties of “new thought”, religion consists of those actions,
purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is
alien to the religious. It includes labour, art, science, philosophy, love,
friendship, recreation--all that is, in its degree, expressive of intelligently
satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular
can no longer be maintained; religious Humanism considers the complete
realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its
development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of
the humanist’s social passion, in place of old attitudes involved in worship
and prayer, the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a
heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social
well-being, it follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural, man
will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their
naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered
by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take
the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal
hopes and wishful thinking, believing that religion must work increasingly for
22
joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to
encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life, religious
humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control,
and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the
enhancement of human life are the purpose and program of humanism.
Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods,
and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience
allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world, the humanists are
firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has
shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls,
and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order
must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of
life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in
which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.
Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world, we assert that humanism
will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of
life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a
satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and
intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment
the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow are the other points.
The title ‘A Humanist Manifesto’ rather than ‘The Humanist Manifesto’ - was
intentional, predictive of later Manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the
case. Unlike the creeds of major organized religions, the setting out of
Humanist ideals in these Manifestos is an ongoing process. Indeed, in some
communities of Humanists the compilation of personal Manifestos is actively
encouraged, and throughout the Humanist movement, it is accepted that the
23
Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be
subject to ongoing critique.
The second Manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H.
Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one. It begins
with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and World War II had made the
first seem “far too optimistic”, and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic
approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more
elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled
optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become
obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.
Many
of
the
proposals
in
the
document,
such
as
opposition
to racism and weapons of mass destruction and support of strong human
rights, are fairly uncontroversial, and its prescriptions that divorce and birth
control should be legal and that technology can improve life are widely
accepted today in much of the Western world. Furthermore, its proposal of
an international court has since been implemented. However, in addition to its
rejection of supernaturalism, various controversial stances are strongly
supported, notably the right to abortion. The general tone of the second
Manifesto has been perceived as moving away from sympathy with libertarian
socialism toward a more economically neutral stance.
Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was
circulated and gained thousands more votaries. The American Humanists
Association (AHA) website encourages visitors to add their own name. A
provision at the end noted that signatories “do not necessarily endorse every
detail” of the document. Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 Manifesto
are, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves,” and “We are responsible
for what we are and for what we will be,” both of which may present
24
difficulties for members of certain Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects, or
other believers in doctrines of submission to the will of an all-powerful God.
Expanding upon the role which the public education establishment should
play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John
Dunphy wrote: “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as
the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and
respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.”
and “Utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in
whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level - preschool
day care or large state university.”
The document entitled ‘Humanism and Its Aspirations’, subtitled Humanist
Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, was published
in 2003 by the AHA, which apparently was written by a committee. The new
document is the successor to the previous ones, and the name “Humanist
Manifesto” is the property of the American Humanist Association. The
newest one is deliberately much shorter, listing six primary beliefs, which
echo themes from its predecessors.
According to it knowledge of the world is derived by observation,
experimentation, and rational analysis. Humans are an integral part of nature,
the result of unguided evolutionary change. Ethical values are derived from
human need and interest as tested by experience and life’s fulfillment emerges
from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. Further, it states
that humans are social by nature, who find meaning in relationships and
working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
25
Signatories to this document included 21 Nobel laureates. Aside from the
official Humanist Manifestos of the American Humanist Association, there
have been other similar documents. In 1980, the Council for Secular
Humanism, founded by Paul Kurtz, which is typically more detailed in its
discussions regarding the function of Humanism than the AHA, published
what is in effect its manifesto, entitled A Secular Humanist Declaration. It has
as its main points free inquiry, separation of church and state, the ideal of
freedom, ethics based on critical intelligence, moral education, religious
skepticism, reason, science and technology, evolution and education. The
leading lights of the Humanist movement are: Thomas Paine, August Comte,
Felix Adler, F.C.S. Schiller, William James, Julian Huxley, John Dewey,
Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Charles Francis Potter, Roywood Sellars and
Bertrand Russell.
It may not be out of place to remind ourselves of the eastern, or more
specifically Indian brand of humanism. The ancient spiritual tradition as
enunciated in the sastras had many strands; primarily it could be divided in
two streams – theistic and atheistic. We find humanistic strain in both these
branches. In the Vedas, there is the call upon man – “Manurbhava”, i.e., “Be
human”. The Upnishadas present epitome of rational thinking, which is a prerequisite of humanist philosophy. Among the six philosophical schools of
India, the non-dualistic philosophy of the Uttar Mimansa denies any basic
difference between God and soul that is assigned to each human being
(Brahman and Atman). Only human being has to free himself from Maya or
the material impurities of Kama, Krodha, Lobha and Moha. It may be pointed
out here that whereas the Renaissance humanism enjoined upon man to be a
better being – a gentleman – in the physical and intellectual sense, the Indian
26
philosophy wants man to be a better spiritual personality to enjoy infinite
happiness called ananda.
During the pre-Buddha period, the Carvaka philosophy matched the
Epicureanism of the West. The followers of this philosophy believed in the
validity of sensory perception alone. Inference based on mental calculation
was not accepted. Earth, water, fire and air are the four elements constituting
the universe. Apart from matter, all talk of heaven and hell was sham. They
did not believe in any transcendental power called God. Soul was not
different from the body for them. So, death put a full stop to human existence.
While on earth, one should ‘eat, drink and be marry’ as is suggested by the
Sanskrit sloka: “Yaavjeevet sukham jeevet, rin kritvam ghrit pivet” (So long as
you live, live merrily; even borrow to devour ghee or butter milk). Clearly,
this is humanism. Of course, the other systems of philosophy based on theistic
premise considered it abominable.
With regard to the classical source of western humanist thinking, it might be
submitted here that one finds many similarities between the Indian and the
Greek mythologies. Various gods and humans have close interaction and they
also come together in their fight against what are considered evil forces. If
Karna is the son of the sun god and the human mother Kunti, so is Venus the
daughter of the chief Greek god Zeus and the human Leda. During the Trojan
war, Joshua commanded the sun to stand still so that he could win battle but
sun’s son Phaeton rode on a winged chariot across the sky bringing death to
him. A similar incident also appears in the Ramayana.
The atheistic Buddhist and Jain philosophies do not speak of God. Instead,
they establish the principles of Dharma as the loftiest reality. The saints of the
Bhakti movement once again preached unquestioned devotion to God who
was the ultimate saviour of man. Of course, their denial of caste
27
considerations were in tune with the humanist thought. At a time when men
were steeped in intolerance and superstition because religion was identified
with ritualism, this fresh thinking of saints like Nanak, Kabir, Namdev, and
Chaitanya heralded a new era. There is no doubt that this type of humanism
falls in the category of spiritual humanism, because to the saints the ultimate
good of human being lies in the uplift of spirit. Talking about Guru Nanak’s
humanism, a critic says:
In the flowering of spiritual life, aesthetic development
of man was placed even higher than rational
development. Higher still was ethical development
which prompted man to engage in a cooperative quest
for an ideal community united in spirit and feeling.
The goal he envisaged was the perpetuation of ‘peak
moments’ of the experience of harmony with the core
of reality.17
This was in tune with the Vedantic philosophy of discerning divinity in every
human soul. Thus, humanism in India has essentially been under the shadow
of spirituality so that it can easily be called spiritual humanism. In modern
India also this trend continued. Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda
and Mahatma Gandhi are the great figures who preached the message of
humanism. Swami Vivekananda re-interpreted Bhagvad Gita to mean equal
stress on action in this world. He called upon youth to develop a strong body
in order to be spiritually strong. Besides, to the spiritual humanists’ mankind
is one as the Swami affirms in his myriad lectures and writings. A specimen:
When a man has reached the highest, when he sees
neither man nor woman, neither sect nor creed, nor
colour, nor birth, nor any of these differentiations, but
goes beyond and finds that divinity which is the real
man behind every human being – then alone he has
reached the universal brotherhood, and that man alone
is a Vedantist.18
28
Rabindranath Tagore, through his writings, mainly his work The Religion of
Man, condemned the social bias against low-caste people and women. As a
critic comments, “In all his novels […] Tagore emphasizes the importance of
man above all types of orthodoxy, narrow-minded sectarianism, religion,
parochialism and violence.”19 He asserts his unswerving faith in the joy of
life, freedom of the individual, respect for human personality, man’s
obedience to his conscience and his enjoyment of life through love and
sacrifice – the universal virtues which stands for humanism in life.” 20 But, of
course, Tagore was an artist at heart and he could not have distanced himself
from the aesthetic aspect of humanism, as Iyenger states:
He tirelessly pursued the ideal of Beauty, and Beauty
was to him also Love, Truth, Goodness and Power. In
poem or play or story or novel, in reminiscence or
exegesis or exhortation or prophecy, Tagore is
essentially of a piece and the total impact of his life
and work is indeed that of a modern Leonardo da
Vinci, or a multiple power and personality. 21
In fact, many other writers of Bengal including Saratchandra Chatterjee and
Tarashankar Banerjee took up this line. Tagore even rejected nationalism of
the Western mould as it considered man to be a political being only. It was
exclusivist when it considered people of other nations to be inferior as Hitler
thought. Mahatma Gandhi clearly proclaimed that the worship of God lay in
the service of mankind. Since he himself imbibed a simple lifestyle of a
common Indian, millions identified themselves with him. Had the later
politicians truly followed Gandhi, the stigma of casteism would have been
effaced from the face of India. Comparing the two, a critic comments,
“Gandhi’s humanism had a moral-social bias, while Tagore’s was coloured by
his aesthetic-mystical experience; but both were firm believers in the worth
and dignity of the human individual. They were both partial to the theistic
29
rather than the pantheistic or absolute traditions in Indian philosophy.” 22 Both
underlined the nature of universal humanism as enshrined in the Vedantic
message of Vasudhaiva kutumbukam (The world is a family).
At the level of modern philosophers, M.N. Roy, an intellectual giant of his
generation, came up with what he christened as Radical Humanism or New
Humanism. Roy rejected communism and parliamentary democracy. He
believed in the essential rational and moral nature of man and his capacity to
build a free and just social order. His glorification of the individual and stress
on achieving political, social and economic freedom for man gained him
many admirers. Apart from him, Dr. S. Radhakrishanan, the first president of
the Indian republic, who was a world renowned philosopher, interpreted the
Indian philosophical tenets to the West. His approach is also in line with the
Indian spiritual humanism.
The Indian Humanist Union, New Delhi, issued a brief statement in 1997,
which also deserves mention here. According to it, Humanism stands for the
furtherance of human values and the building of a more humane society
through an ethics based on human perceptions and capabilities without linking
it with any supra-human entity, i.e., on assessments made in a spirit of reason
and free enquiry. The statement outlines certain ‘corollaries’ to the humanist
viewpoint, like, human ethics needs no external sanction, and has its springs
in the innate sense of values which are an intrinsic part of human nature.
Though human nature and Nature itself include both selfishness and even
cruelty on the one hand and selflessness and compassion on the other, human
values refer to the latter and humanist ethics believes in promoting these only.
Humanism believes that there is a close link between its two core values,
human self-reliance and human compassion, and the spirit of free enquiry,
30
which is part of human self-reliance can alone genuinely promote human
values.
Again, the scientific spirit of free enquiry, in its true sense, would include the
acceptance of uncertainties (rather than of dogmas, rigidities or views held
with aggressive certainty) and would therefore generate greater humility,
tolerance and compassion and thus lead to furtherance of human values and of
a more humane society and experience shows that dogmas of all kinds,
particularly religious dogmas in our context, fail to rise to the humane
requirements of many situations and ultimately tend to negate compassion.
Furthermore, the spirit of free enquiry would require that all evidence,
whatever be its nature, must be examined by the method of reason and free
enquiry. Humanism, therefore, believes in the use of reason, free enquiry and
free thought in the service of compassion and human values and humanism
believes in the development of ethics on a non-theistic basis in which human
beings are considered to be free and responsible without referring to powers
considered to be of higher importance than human beings themselves with the
view that Theism, in its conventional sense involving the existence of an
unquestionable but approachable entity which consciously intervenes in,
controls or influences human affairs is not considered compatible with
humanism. However, any metaphysical beliefs of individual humanists in a
non-conventional theism, different from the above, would be, by definition,
neither in contradiction with, nor a part of, their humanist life-stance.
Humanists may differ on whether it is better to describe humanism as a
religion or not, on which humanists may differ (as it would depend on how
the word 'religion' is defined,) humanism supports the principle of secularism
in the sense of separation of religion from state affairs and parity amongst
people holding different religious views, including those who do not believe
31
in any religion. So humanism believes in the freedom of the individual,
including the right of self-determination and the full realization of each
person’s talents.
The desirable goal of promoting human values and a more humane society
would include a number of elements, some of the more important being are
greater tolerance and compassion and greater feeling of oneness, and
commonality not only amongst humankind but within the entire environment
and the ecology of Nature. It also includes some degree of altruism,
comprising a certain generosity of the heart towards others and promotion of
justice and fair play particularly through the spirit of democracy, including
respect for majority opinion as also the protection of pluralism and the
reasonable rights of minority groups. Lastly, it shows concern for human
rights in keeping broadly with the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the United Nations.”23
Concluding the chapter, it might be said that humanism is a philosophy in
which the central concern is always the man and his happiness. It underlines
the value and dignity of man and takes him as the measure of all things, as
Protagoras said. With the passage of time, several types of humanism were
evolved – Naturalistic, Scientific, Religious, Marxist, Pragmatist, Realistic,
Radical, Evolutionary etc. Still what remains common to all of these is the
faith in the potentialities latent in man for his own good as well as the good of
the entire mankind. All knowledge as well as human institutions are deemed
useful only when they help man realize his potentialities. Most of the
humanists of the West and some of the East hold that what matters to man
really is this earthly existence and not the unseen other world, so that man’s
attention ought to be centred on what is obtained here and now. Thus, it can
be called universal ethics.
32
It must also be admitted that humanism is a philosophy of optimism. Since it
gives centrality to man, it is but natural that it will always appeal to him for
selfish reasons of his existence. It is dynamic and pragmatic and can change
with the changing needs of man over a period of time. No wonder then his
existential concerns related to society and environment are finding increasing
attention. But existentialism studies human person in predicament in which he
is called upon to prove himself – to create and maintain himself. It takes man
with all his strong and weak points. Existentialists do not believe in revelatory
religion whereas humanists may have faith in it. Humanism does not create
any such distinction.
33
References
1
Herschell Baker. The Image of Man (New York: Routledge, 1961), p. 63.
2
S.L. Paul, Philosophical Background to Western Literature (Karnal:
Sidhartha Publications, 1989), p. 4.
3
Ibid., p. 5.
4
Bhim S. Dahiya, A New History of English Literature (Delhi: Doaba
Publications, 2005), p. 31.
5
Ibid., p. 29.
6
Emile Legouis, History of English Literature (Delhi: Macmillan, 1981,
Reprint 2004), p. 212.
7
“Humanism,” Indigo Dictionary of Philosophy (New Delhi: Cosmo
Publications, 2002), p. 256.
8
Tony Davies, Humanism (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 26.
9
Ibid., p. 51.
10
Karl Marx, Early Writings, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor
Benton (London: Hammondsworth, 1975), p. 348.
11
Corliss Lamont, Humanism as a Philosophy (New York: Routledge,
1950), p. 21.
12
Frederick Edwords, “What is Humanism?” The Secular Web 1989 Internet
Infidels 22 Feb. 2010. <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/
humanism.html>
13
Paul, p. 209.
14
Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. “Section One: The Subject”, Modern
Literary Theory: A Reader, 2nd Edition (London: Edward Arnold, 1992), p.
119.
15
Leela Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory (New Delhi: Oxford, 1998), p. 53.
16
Ibid., p. 16.
17
Wazir Singh, Humanism of Guru Nanak: A philosophic enquiry (Delhi:
Ess Ess Publications, 1977), p. 177.
34
18
Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.
1 (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama,1989, Reprint 2001), pp. 391-92.
19
Kunjo Singh, Humanism and Nationalism in Tagore’s Novels (New
Delhi: Atlantic, 2002), p. 143.
20
Harish Raizada, “Humanism in the Novels of Rabindranath Tagore”,
Perspctives on Rabindranath Tagore, ed. T.R. Sharma (Ghaziabad: Vimal,
1986), p. 78.
21
K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, Rabindranath Tagore: A Critical Introduction
(New Delhi: Strling, 1987), p. 112.
22
V.S. Narwane, Modern Indian Thought (Bombay: Shinde, 1989), p. 113.
23
“A Brief Statement of the Humanist Viewpoint,” 1970 The Indian
Humanist Union 30 Jan. 2010 <http://www.india.humanists.net>