Deendayal Upadhyaya: Integral Humanism

Learning Outcomes

1. Understand the core tenets of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy of Integral Humanism.
2. Analyze the philosophical divergence between Western materialism and Integral Humanism.
3. Examine the applicability of Integral Humanism in contemporary political, economic, and social contexts.
4. Discern how Integral Humanism reflects upon and contrasts with Modern Western Philosophy.

Integral Humanism: Philosophical Roots and Vision

Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy of Integral Humanism offers a distinctive framework grounded in both contemporary Indian philosophy and traditional Indian thought. Formulated in the mid-20th century, Integral Humanism emerged as a response to the dichotomous philosophies of Western materialism and Eastern spiritualism, seeking to harmonize material and spiritual progress.

Integral Humanism envisions a system where individual well-being is intricately linked to societal welfare, integrating diverse human capacities—physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual—into a coherent whole.

Core Tenets of Integral Humanism

Integral Humanism focuses on the all-encompassing nature of human life, balancing between material and spiritual dimensions. It offers a critique of both the excessive focus on the individual in capitalist Western philosophies and the collectivist overtones in socialist paradigms.

1. Human-Centric Philosophy: Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism is primarily a human-centered approach that seeks to place human dignity and holistic development at the forefront of social, economic, and political discourse. Unlike Western individualism, which often isolates the individual from society, Integral Humanism emphasizes the interdependent nature of individual and society.

2. Integration of Body, Mind, and Spirit: One of the fundamental principles of Integral Humanism is the harmonious integration of the body, mind, intellect, and soul. These four facets are interconnected, and any philosophy or system that isolates one aspect without regard to the others fails to address the holistic needs of a person. Western philosophies, particularly rationalism and empiricism, often emphasize the intellect or material progress, neglecting the spiritual dimension. Integral Humanism posits that human fulfillment can only be achieved through an equilibrium between the material and spiritual.

3. Rejection of Western Materialism: Integral Humanism vehemently rejects the materialistic ideologies of capitalism and Marxism, which view human beings primarily in terms of their economic productivity or class identity. In contrast, Upadhyaya’s approach recognizes that material well-being is necessary, but it should not dominate the individual’s spiritual and intellectual life.

4. Cultural Identity and Nationalism: Integral Humanism places immense importance on a society’s cultural identity. Upadhyaya believed that Westernization, with its emphasis on universalism and homogenization, erodes the diversity of local cultures. He proposed that the Indian culture with its spiritual and ethical foundations, is uniquely positioned to offer a counter to Western materialism. According to him, India’s model of governance should reflect its cultural ethos, thus fostering nationalism that is rooted in cultural identity rather than political or territorial supremacy.

Important Note: Integral Humanism emphasizes cultural diversity as essential to national unity, contrasting Western models where nationalism often implies a monolithic national identity.

Integral Humanism and Modern Western Philosophy

The relationship between Integral Humanism and Modern Western Philosophy can be understood through the lens of their divergent approaches to human nature, society, and governance. While both traditions explore human welfare, they do so in fundamentally different ways.

1. Anthropocentric vs Holistic View: Western philosophy since the Enlightenment has been largely anthropocentric, focusing on human reason, individual rights, and autonomy. Rationalist and utilitarian perspectives focus on human progress through technological and economic growth. In contrast, Integral Humanism calls for a holistic view of human beings, seeing them as part of a larger cosmic order. Upadhyaya believed that this holistic perspective could ensure true happiness, in opposition to Western philosophy’s neglect of the spiritual.

2. Dialectical Materialism vs Spiritual Ontology: Marxism’s emphasis on dialectical materialism, where the economic base determines the social superstructure, is incompatible with the metaphysical premises of Integral Humanism. In Integral Humanism, the spiritual is as real and significant as the material. Western philosophies often reduce the social order to economic relationships, whereas Upadhyaya’s vision places ethical and spiritual development as primary drivers of human society.

3. Secularism and Religion: Another key difference between Western liberalism and Integral Humanism lies in their understanding of secularism. Western secularism often implies a strict separation of religion and state, viewing religion as an individual affair. In contrast, Integral Humanism suggests that society’s ethical foundation is inherently connected to spiritual principles. Upadhyaya emphasized that the role of religion should not be relegated to personal belief but should inform the moral framework of society.

Integral Humanism and Social Systems

Integral Humanism also envisions a restructuring of social and political systems. While Western philosophies like liberal democracy and socialism offer certain solutions for organizing society, Upadhyaya’s model seeks a system that caters to the comprehensive development of individuals and communities.

1. Decentralization of Political Power: Integral Humanism calls for the decentralization of political power, promoting a system of governance where local communities have significant autonomy. Western political systems often rely on centralized state apparatuses, whether democratic or socialist, which can lead to alienation. Upadhyaya believed that village self-sufficiency, inspired by Gandhian thought, was the best way to empower individuals while preserving the integrity of the community.

2. Economics of Needs, Not Greed: The economic philosophy of Integral Humanism is based on producing according to needs rather than greed. Unlike capitalist economies, driven by perpetual growth and accumulation, and socialist economies, which often advocate for state-controlled production, Integral Humanism emphasizes sustainable economies rooted in local resources. Upadhyaya believed that small-scale, decentralized production would create a balanced economy that meets human needs without exploiting nature.

Process Flow:
Individual well-being → Community welfare → Cultural integrity → Spiritual growth.

Integral Humanism in Contemporary Context

The philosophy of Integral Humanism remains highly relevant in contemporary discussions of sustainable development, cultural pluralism, and holistic welfare models. As modern societies grapple with the negative consequences of globalization, environmental degradation, and economic disparity, Upadhyaya’s vision offers alternative solutions that prioritize balance and integration over unchecked progress.

1. Environmental Sustainability: The modern environmental movement aligns closely with the holistic ethics of Integral Humanism. Where Western capitalist systems often promote exploitative relationships with nature, Integral Humanism advocates for living in harmony with nature. Upadhyaya’s emphasis on decentralization and small-scale economies promotes sustainable environmental practices, making his philosophy increasingly relevant today.

2. Multiculturalism and Globalization: In a globalized world, Upadhyaya’s ideas about cultural identity and national self-determination offer a framework for understanding how societies can retain their unique identities while engaging with global trends. Unlike the homogenizing tendencies of Western globalization, Integral Humanism supports the idea of maintaining local traditions and values within a pluralistic world order.

Comparative Analysis: Western Philosophies vs Integral Humanism

Important Note: Integral Humanism does not reject modernity but calls for its transformation through indigenous cultural and ethical frameworks.

Philosophical Contributions and Criticisms

Integral Humanism has been praised for its holistic view of humanity and society, but it has also faced criticisms. Some argue that it lacks a concrete framework for implementation, especially in diverse, multi-religious societies like India. Moreover, critics of Upadhyaya’s philosophy suggest that his emphasis on cultural nationalism could risk alienating minority communities within India, though supporters argue that it promotes unity through diversity.

MCQ: Which of the following is a core principle of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism?
a) Emphasis on individual wealth accumulation
b) Centralized state control
c) Harmonization of material and spiritual well-being
d) Complete separation of religion from public life
Correct answer: c) Harmonization of material and spiritual well-being