RADHAKRISHNAN

AS A PHILOSOPHER-STATESMAN

DR. P. T. RAJU

India’s philosopher-statesman, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (born 1888) is one of the most dignified and yet lively personalities among the world’s great men, and can be counted now along with Asoka the Great and Marcus Aurelius. It is given to very few philosophically minded men to rise to a position from which they can make their philosophies effective. The world can rarely bring together circumstances that enable a great soul to become a ruler, particularly of a great State or Empire. It was the hope of Plato in the West and of Confucius in the East that philosophers would be kings; and in both China and Greece political history was interpreted as a cycle of events that throws out a philosopher-king for rectifying the evil that accumulated in the past before one cycle closes and another begins. During the historical times, after Asoka the Great, there has not been, for nearly two thousand years, a philosophically minded ruler in India, who presided over the destinies of the whole of the sub-continent.

Dr. Radhakrishnan comes from the State of Andhra Pradesh, which has not been particularly known for giving recognition to its great men. This observation holds especially after the Satavahana Dynasty, which was really Andhra, but was claimed also by Maharashtra. Nagarjuna, the great Buddhist philosopher, patronised by the Satavahanas, presided over the great Buddhist establishment at Amaravati. But it is not established beyond doubt that he was an Andhra by birth. Nimbarka and Vallabha, two of the great Vedantins, found no place in their own native State. For a long time, the Andhra area has not been known for the origination or leadership of any great spiritual, social or political movement. Its great men became great outside, or men from outside became great there. No wonder that the greatness of Radhakrishnan was recognized after he became King George V Professor of Philosophy in the Calcutta University in Bengal. His greatness was recognized by Bengal first. The geat philosopher-statesman who built up the Vijayanagar Empire, Swami Vidyaranya (Sayana-Madhava) was an Andhra, took sanyasa, and established the tradition that the heads of the Sringeri Monastery should be selected from among the Andhras. But he was as much a Karnatika as an Andhra. Dr. Radhakrishnan is also claimed for different reasons by the States of Andhra, Tamilnad, Karnataka, and Bengal. However, he is an Indian first, and is the least provincial in feelings. Temperamentally, Dr. Radhakrishnan is a philosopher, spiritual and profound in outlook. He is a Stoic, an idealist, extremely humane and deeply concerned with the lot of man on earth. His idealism and stoicism can be seen in his accepting only one-fourth of the salary which, according to the Constitution of India, his predecessor was drawing. That is, in terms of American money, he will receive only about 510 dollars per month. And that amount too is subject to income-tax deductions. Yet in spite of his philosophy, he can show lively interest in all human affairs, without being abstract-minded and putting on a long face. He is a person who can give the fullest consideration which the opposite point of view deserves, because his vision is deep and comprehensive. He is a man whose foresight can reach farther than that of most men. Intolerance is a word that cannot be applied to him. Even during the days when jealousy was able to harm him, he could be charitable to his enemies. Every great man, however good he may be, creates some enemies not necessarily by doing positive harm to them, but by being able to accomplish what they could not and thereby arousing their envy. And Dr. Radhakrishnan could not be an exception.

As a philosopher, Radhakrishnan started as an admirer of Rabindranath Tagore’s ideas. Later he became a follower of Sankara’s Vedanta, but yet with a positively constructive philosophy of the world. He is rightly regarded as the first Indian thinker who had an equal grasp of Indian and Western philosophies, and is therefore qualified for the role of a liaison officer between East and West. Nobody disproved Kipling’s view that the East and the West can never meet more conclusively than Dr. Radhakrishnan, who proved that not only did the two meet in the ancient times, but also that long before their meeting they were one and took different ways. He is one of the strongest opponents of the view that man in the East and in the West is basically different. He believes strongly in the spiritual oneness of mankind, which has to be brought to the surface, although hidden behind cultural differences. These differences should not be equated to the man behind the culture.

Dr. Radhakrishnan takes earnestly the fourth Aphorism of the Brahmasutras and applies it to all fields of human life, and to all the philosophies and cultures. The Aphorism refers to the reconciliation of the conflicting texts. Similar reconciliation is necessary and possible for discovering the unity of all religions, cultures and mankind. The differences between religions and cultures are only external. If we look through the externals, we can see the underlying unity, which is more important than the differences. Radhakrishnan does not advocate the abolition of the different religions and the giving up of the different cultures, but pleads that each realize the internal, essential truth expressed in different ways.

Philosophy of Democracy: Radhakrishnan’s philosophy is essentially religious, in the sense of being spiritual. But “spiritual” does not mean for him the mere practice of Yoga. The practice of Yoga is good and useful; but true spiritual life should express itself in good social institutions, good political forms, and a healthy family life. The contemporary distrust of religion is due to its presumed indifference to them. Religion is Dharma; Dharma is what supports life and preserves its harmony. Whatever is not conducive to such harmony cannot truly be religion. A religion that preaches discord, hatred of the followers of other religions, cannot be a true religion. Religion, if true, should contribute to the harmonious life of mankind, but not to its breaking up.

Radhakrishnan is in sympathy with humanistic movements, from his own point of view. He observes that humanistic revolts are justified when religion forgets man and does not come down from its holy heights to help him in his concrete situations. Yet humanism without a spiritual philosophy is never complete. It concerns itself with man in his external forms, but leaves out the inner source of his creativity, the spiritual fountain.

One important idea that Radhakrishnan has made popular is that religion is essential for democracy. Democracy is based upon the principle of the freedom of man. Every man is free to choose what he considers to be right and rational. His freedom works through economic, social, political and material forms. As forms, they are not only subject to determinate laws, but also expressed as such. What then is the basis of man’s freedom? It cannot be economic and political laws, which also have determinate forms. It must be the Spirit within man, the expressions of which are the different laws which cannot be equated to it. If democracy believes in the freedom of man, it has to believe in the Spirit within him. And it is religion that takes, in all earnestness, the reality of such a spirit. Without belief in the reality of spirit, no philosophy of democracy can be self-sufficient.

If we do not believe in the reality of Spirit, philosophy has necessarily to be pessimistic and the forms it takes on will be the different kinds of materialism or of existentialism. A thorough-going materialism can give no hope to mankind. Nor can existentialism that does not believe in the reality of Spirit give it. The finite man is the beginning and end of all such philosophies, and he ends in death and hopelessness. The idea is not that we should believe in Spirit in order to give false hopes for which there is no real basis. Radhakrishnan says that the understanding of man as merely the finite, physical and psychological individual is false and mistaken. He believes in what the Mahabharata says, namely, that man contains in himself the essential secret of the universe, the inner Spirit, the Brahman. It is faith in such Spirit, which is not necessarily bound by external conditions, that has enabled cultures to survive in spite of centuries of catastrophies, and to re-create themselves from time to time out of ruins. Otherwise, they would have broken down and entered the limbo of history with only antiquarian, but not living, interest for us. The cultures and civilizations that survived in spite of adversities could do so owing to unbounded faith in an indestructible Spirit. And those cultures only that reached the stage of such faith could survive and assert themselves with new vigour after the storms passed away. The nature of Spirit is rationality and not blind force, sweetness and not violence, love and not hatred, harmony and not discord, compassion and not cruelty, and dynamism and not sterility. Where such qualities lie at the basis of a culture, and its philosophy teaches that they are not temporary and prudent expedients for attaining transitory goals but the expressions of the innermost spirit working through man, such a culture is sure to survive.

Dignified Personality: Although simple and unostematious, Dr. Radhakrishnan is one of the most dignified personalities. He was the first Indian ambassador for whom even Stalin showed regard. Whatever be the meeting or conference the chair of which he adorns, he brings prestige and dignity to it. Even the most tense atmosphere can be relieved by him with a humorous, nice, or philosophical remark. He has the capacity to talk to people of all ages and levels, and make them feel at home in his presence. With children he can take interest in their fun. He can humour youth. As a Vice-Chancellor he could send back the students who carne to complain and argue, satisfied, smiling and in good humour, and yet make them follow what was right. He could be strict when conditions demanded, yet strict in a way that his strictness was not felt as harshness. To the people who went for advice over their difficulties, he had always a good word to give. It is characteristics like these that made him popular with students and politicians and that enabled him to command respect from all sides. Even the Communists, whether they like his philosophy or not, hold him in high regard.

Not an Abstract Philosopher: Dr. Radhakrishnan’s interest in the political life of India is much older than 1947, when India attained her independence. He was not a Bengali by birth; yet his popularity with the students of Calcutta was as great as that of any Bengali professor and the students were really proud of him. This was extraordinary, since the people of Bengal had the greatest provincial self-consciousness. I still remember the incident, when I was a student of the Calcutta University, when two rival factions among students wanted to wreck the efforts of each other to stage a Bengali drama, but both of them listened patiently when Dr. Radhakrishnan spoke. He was the most successful mediator and peace-maker not only among the students, but also in the whole university, and not only within the university but also between the university and the government, whenever some trouble arose with the students. Not only over abstract philosophical ideas, but also over the minds of men was his command great and admirable. His interest and concern were not only with books and ideas, but also with actual men.

Although he was a member of the Indian Educational Service and was knighted by the British Government–either of which would have prevented anyone else from being sympathetic towards national leaders who were asking the British to quit India–he gave a party to Jawaharlal Nehru in the year 1929. This was at that time a sensation. From that time onwards, his mind was moving from abstract philosophy to concrete human situations. Not that he gave up philosophy from that time. Even during his vice~presidentship he wrote a number of books. He became the Spalding Professor at Oxford long after he gave the party to Nehru. From the year 1929, one may safely guess, his interest in men and human affairs became stronger and stronger. He became a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and brought out a book on him.

It is recalled by the students of Radhakrishnan that he was one of the best teachers of logic. But he was always of the opinion that living best is more important than arguing best for defeating the opponent. The doctrine of judgment and proposition is not philosophy in itself; the aim of philosophy is to tell man how to lead a good life, pointing out when it is wrong and which is the right way. The right way concerns not only the way to salvation, but also a harmonious, full, and perfect life in this world. It concerns the relation between man and man, man and woman, man and animal, nation and nation, religion and religion, and so forth. Philosophy is a way of life, not merely a way of thought. Logic and analysis are not the end of philosophy. They were not so for the Greeks, the Indians or the Chinese.

Unity of Mankind: Brought up in the Indian tradition of the Vedanta, Dr. Radhakrishnan would never accept that the question about the meaning of life is meaningless. The thinkers of the Indian Renaissance–Tagore, Tilak, Vivekananda, and Gandhi–whatever be the differences between their philosophies, emphasized the importance of the life in this world. Tagore showed more interest in the created world than in the pure, eternal, perfect Brahman behind all appearances. Vivekananda, although a follower of Sankara and himself a monk, preached the uplift of man, utilising Sankara’s doctrine that the Atman is the Brahman itself for exhorting man to realise his greatness and express it here itself. Tilak preached that there can be no realization of the Brahman without active life in this world. Mahatma Gandhi said that he found religion in the service of humanity, in its economic and political uplift. The spiritual significance of religion came to be discovered in the life of man as man, in its various kinds of institutions. Human life is not meaningless, its meaning lies in the implications of its conscious being, which reaches right up to the Brahman. The Brahman can be discovered the best in man, although the flower in the crannied wall also can reveal it. Such a discovery is the main task of philosophy, if it is to teach a way of life and is not to be merely content with being a way of thought. Man contains the cue to the secret of life and the universe; as such he is in his essence the Brahman itself. That he is the, Brahman, the principle of unity and harmony in the universe, should be exemplified in all human institutions.

The world should have as its aim the realization of this unity, the unity of mankind. Such realization is not to be confined to meditation and prayer, but should express itself in a harmonious living of all men and all nations, making the unity transparent not only in the economic and commercial forms, but also psychologically in active expressions of love, compassion, and sympathy. It is not meant that all nations should weld into one, that all religions should disappear giving place to a new one, all cultures should be given up and a new one introduced. It is meant that each should realize the essential unity of mankind, the basic similarity of man everywhere in the world, through the concrete feeling of the brotherhood of man, in spite of the differences of race, culture, religion, and nationality. These differences are differences within the one great institution that is to be governed by the great principle, the brotherhood of all mankind.

Dr. Radhakrishnan in some of his lectures spoke of the one world. But this one world is for him more psychological and spiritual than political. It does not seem that the idea meant for him one nation, one political constitution, or anything of the kind. He was a member of the League of Nations, Chairman of the UNESCO; he adorned several such positions. He has the greatest faith in the UN. The international associations like the UN and the trans-national and trans-cultural associations like the different religious and academic bodies are not only bringing together all the social and political groups, but also cutting across the boundaries of each, bringing to the forefront the universality of human nature, human interests, aims and aspirations; and they may ultimately succeed in creating in man the habit of thinking and orienting himself towards the idea that all humanity is one. But whether they will succeed in creating a super-nation on the earth under a political constitution is too early to predict, although the League of Nations and the UN are noteworthy attempts in that direction. I do not remember to have read or listened to any definite programme towards such a goal laid out by Radhakrishnan. One would imagine that he has not done it because he has enough realism in him not to be too Utopian. At present the idea of one State for the whole world with one constitution, in which all men are equal, free, happy, and contented, is too Utopian. Dr. Radhakrishnan is a realist in action and an idealist in outlook–a rare but a most desirable combination for the supreme Head of a State.

India has been very fortunate in having Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who was a scholar and one of the most trusted followers of Mahatma Gandhi, as her first President. And she is no less fortunate in having as her second President Dr. Radhakrishnan, who is well known throughout the world as one of the greatest of contemporary thinkers and statesmen and who, even apart from the highest position he occupies in India, is held in respect wherever he goes. It is through his thoughtful guidance that she can not only retain and strengthen her individuality and keep the continuity of her great spiritual past, but also make progress towards strength, health, and prosperity. The contemporary Heads of India can no longer have the advantages of the autocratic, though benevolent, monarchs like Asoka the Great, whose will was law; Asoka submitted his will to Dharma, the sustaining law of the Spirit, but there was no worldly force that could have compelled him to submit his will to Dharma. Now India is democratic, and one can only pray that the conditions and forces, necessary for enabling Dr. Radhakrishnan to see the results of his profound insight and vast experience, obtain in India. The tendency in most countries that have recently obtained independence is to break off from their spiritual traditions, not knowing how to assimilate the new to the old or how to adjust the old to the new. Either process needs insight, understanding and proper guidance. India is fortunate in having Dr. Radhakrishnan who can supply the three requisites. Without the spiritual leaven in her culture and outlook, India will no longer be India; nor can she survive without material progress. Her need is an evolution of their unity.

Back