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 post-

Independence 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 pre-

Socratic 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 inwhich the Third Reich chose to project its publicpersonality, there was no escaping the recognition thatthe systematic purging of Jews, homosexuals and otherracial impurities was the result not of someinexplicable descent into irrational, atavistic barbaritybut of a supremely modern rationality. The coolframing of objectives, the logical planning of complexsystems, the orderly deployment of technology andresources: all these testify to a piece of demographicengineering as measured in its symmetry, as eloquentin its appalling fashion of individual genius andcollective 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 privateproperty as human self estrangement, and hence thetrue appropriation of the human essence through andfor man; it is the complete restoration of man tohimself as a social, i.e. human, being. […] Thiscommunism, as fully developed naturalism, equalshumanism, and as fully developed humanism equalsnaturalism, it is the genuine resolution of the conflictbetween man and nature, and between man and man,the true resolution of the conflict between existenceand 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 lifeto lead and should make the most of it in terms ofcreative work and happiness that human happiness isits own justification and requires no sanction orsupport from supernatural sources; that in the form ofheavenly gods or immortal heaves, does not exist; andthat human beings, using their own intelligence andcooperating with one another, can build an enduringcitadel 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 abasis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals,methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, arationale for living life joyously, and an overall senseof purpose. To serve social needs, Humanist religiouscommunities (such as Ethical Culture societies andmany Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense ofbelonging, an institutional setting for the moraleducation of children, special holidays shared withlike-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, theperformance of ideologically consistent rites ofpassage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-agecelebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity foraffirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historicalcontext 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 fundamentalassumption about the primacy of the autonomous andunified individual. For humanism, ‘man is at thecentre of meaning and action; the world is orientedaround 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 commonhuman essence cohere around the idea of a sovereignself, whose essential core of being transcends theoutward signs of environmental and socialconditioning. Post-structuralism has sought to disrupt

17

this man-centred view of the world, arguing that thesubject, and that sense of unique subjectivity itself, isconstructed in language and discourse; and ratherthan 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 pre-

requisite 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 developmentof man was placed even higher than rationaldevelopment. Higher still was ethical developmentwhich prompted man to engage in a cooperative questfor an ideal community united in spirit and feeling.The goal he envisaged was the perpetuation of ‘peakmoments’ of the experience of harmony with the coreof 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 seesneither man nor woman, neither sect nor creed, norcolour, nor birth, nor any of these differentiations, butgoes beyond and finds that divinity which is the realman behind every human being – then alone he hasreached the universal brotherhood, and that man aloneis 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 Beautywas to him also Love, Truth, Goodness and Power. Inpoem or play or story or novel, in reminiscence orexegesis or exhortation or prophecy, Tagore isessentially of a piece and the total impact of his lifeand work is indeed that of a modern Leonardo daVinci, 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

1Herschell Baker. The Image of Man (New York: Routledge, 1961), p. 63.2S.L. Paul, Philosophical Background to Western Literature (Karnal:

Sidhartha Publications, 1989), p. 4.3Ibid., p. 5.4Bhim S. Dahiya, A New History of English Literature (Delhi: Doaba

Publications, 2005), p. 31.5Ibid., p. 29.6Emile Legouis, History of English Literature (Delhi: Macmillan, 1981,

Reprint 2004), p. 212.7“Humanism,” Indigo Dictionary of Philosophy (New Delhi: Cosmo

Publications, 2002), p. 256.8Tony Davies, Humanism (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 26.9Ibid., p. 51.10Karl Marx, Early Writings, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor

Benton (London: Hammondsworth, 1975), p. 348.11Corliss Lamont, Humanism as a Philosophy (New York: Routledge,

1950), p. 21.12Frederick Edwords, “What is Humanism?” The Secular Web 1989 Internet

Infidels 22 Feb. 2010. <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/humanism.html>

13Paul, p. 209.14Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. “Section One: The Subject”, Modern

Literary Theory: A Reader, 2nd Edition (London: Edward Arnold, 1992), p.119.

15Leela Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory (New Delhi: Oxford, 1998), p. 53.16Ibid., p. 16.17Wazir Singh, Humanism of Guru Nanak: A philosophic enquiry (Delhi:

Ess Ess Publications, 1977), p. 177.

34

18Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.1 (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama,1989, Reprint 2001), pp. 391-92.

19Kunjo Singh, Humanism and Nationalism in Tagore’s Novels (NewDelhi: Atlantic, 2002), p. 143.

20Harish Raizada, “Humanism in the Novels of Rabindranath Tagore”,Perspctives on Rabindranath Tagore, ed. T.R. Sharma (Ghaziabad: Vimal,1986), p. 78.

21K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, Rabindranath Tagore: A Critical Introduction(New Delhi: Strling, 1987), p. 112.

22V.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>