| |
The Conditions of a Free World-Union
A free world-union must in its very nature be a complex unity based on
a diversity and that diversity must be based on free self-determination.
A mechanical unitarian system would regard in its idea the geographical
groupings of men as so many conveniences for provincial division, for
the convenience of administration, much in the same spirit as the French
Revolution reconstituted France with an entire disregard of old natural
and historic divisions. It would regard mankind as one single nation and
it would try to efface the old separative national spirit altogether;
it would arrange its system probably by continents and subdivide the continents
by convenient geographical demarcations. In this other quite opposite
idea, the geographical, the physical principle of union would be subordinated
to a psychological principle; for not a mechanical division, but a living
diversity would be its object. If this object is to be secured, the peoples
of humanity must be allowed to group themselves according to their free-will
and their natural affinities; no constraint or force could be allowed
to compel an unwilling nation or distinct grouping of peoples to enter
into another system or join itself or remain joined to it for the convenience,
aggrandisement or political necessity of another people or even for the
general convenience, in disregard of its own wishes. Nations or countries
widely divided from each other geographically like England and Canada
or England and Australia might cohere together. Nations closely grouped
locally might choose to stand apart, like England and Ireland or like
Finland and Russia. Unity would be the largest principle of life, but
freedom would be its foundation-stone. [Necessarily to every principle
there must be in application a reasonable limit; otherwise fantastic and
impracticable absurdities might take the place of a living truth.]
In a world built on the present political and commercial basis this system
of groupings might present often insuperable difficulties or serious disadvantages;
but in the condition of things in which alone a free world-union would
be possible, these difficulties and disadvantages would cease to operate.
Military necessity of forced union for strength of defence or for power
of aggression would be non-existent, because war would no longer be possible;
force as the arbiter of international differences and a free world-union
are two quite incompatible ideas and practically could not coexist. The
political necessity would also disappear; for it is largely made up of
that very spirit of conflict and the consequent insecure conditions of
international life apportioning predominance in the world to the physically
and organically strongest nations out of which the military necessity
arose. In a free world-union determining its affairs and settling its
differences by agreement or, where agreement failed, by arbitration, the
only political advantage of including large masses of men not otherwise
allied to each other in a single State would be the greater influence
arising from mass and population. But this influence could not work if
the inclusion were against the will of the nations brought together in
the State; for then it would rather be a source of weakness and disunion
in the State's international action - unless indeed it were allowed in
the international system to weigh by its bulk and population without regard
to the will and opinion of the peoples constituting it. Thus the population
of Finland and Poland might swell the number of voices which a united
Russia could count in the council of the nations , but the will, sentiment
and opinions of the Finns and Poles be given no means of expression in
that mechanical and unreal unity. [The inclusion of India in the League
of Nations has evidently been an arrangement of this type.] But this
would be contrary to the modern sense of justice and reason and incompatible
with the principle of freedom which could alone ensure a sound and peaceful
basis for the world-arrangement. Thus the elimination of war and the settlement
of differences by peaceful means would remove the military necessity for
forced unions, while the right of every people to a free voice and status
in the world would remove its political necessity and advantage. The elimination
of war and the recognition of the equal rights of all peoples are intimately
bound up with each other. That interdependence, admitted for a moment,
even though imperfectly, during the European conflict, will have to be
permanently accepted if there is to be any unification of the race.
The economic question remains, and it is the sole important problem of
a vital and physical order which might possibly present in this kind of
world-arrangement any serious difficulties, or in which the advantages
of a unitarian system might really outweigh those of this more complex
unity. In either, however, the forcible economic exploitation of one nation
by another, which is so large a part of the present economic order, would
necessarily be abolished. There would remain the possibility of a sort
of peaceful economic struggle, a separativeness, a building up of artificial
barriers, - a phenomenon which has been a striking and more and more prominent
feature of the present commercial civilisation. But it is likely that
once the element of struggle were removed from the political field, the
stress of the same struggle in the economic field would greatly decrease.
The advantages of self-sufficiency and predominance, to which political
rivalry and struggle and the possibility of hostile relations now give
an enormous importance, would lose much of their stringency and the advantages
of a freer give and take would become more easily visible. It is obvious,
for example, that an independent Finland would profit much more by encouraging
the passage of Russian commerce through Finnish ports or an Italian Trieste
by encouraging the passage of the commerce of the present Austrian provinces
than by setting up a barrier between itself and its natural feeders. An
Ireland politically or administratively independent, able to develop its
agricultural and technical education and intensification of productiveness,
would find a greater advantage in sharing the movement of the commerce
of Great Britain than in isolating itself, even as Great Britain would
profit more by an agreement with such an Ireland than by keeping her a
poor and starving helot on her estate. Throughout the world, the idea
and fact of union once definitely prevailing, unity of interests would
be more clearly seen and the greater advantage of agreement and mutual
participation in a naturally harmonised life over the feverish artificial
prosperity created by a stressing of separative barriers.
That stressing is inevitable in an order of struggle and international
competition; it would be seen to be prejudicial in an order of peace and
union which would make for mutual accommodation. The principle of a free
world-union being that of the settlement of common affairs by common agreement,
this could not be confined to the removal of political differences and
the arrangement of political relations alone, but must naturally extend
to economic differences and economic relations as well. To the removal
of war and the recognition of the right of self-determination of the peoples
the arrangement of the economic life of the world in its new order by
mutual and common agreement would have to be added as the third condition
of a free union.
There remains the psychological question of the advantage to the soul
of humanity, to its culture, to its intellectual, moral, aesthetic, spiritual
growth. At present, the first great need of the psychological life of
humanity is the growth towards a greater unity; but its need is that of
a living unity, not in the externals of civilisation, in dress, manners,
habits of life, details of political, social and economic order, not a
uniformity, which is the unity towards which the mechanical age of civilisation
has been driving, but a free development everywhere with a constant friendly
interchange, a close understanding, a feeling of our common humanity,
its great common ideals and the truths towards which it is driving and
a certain unity and correlation of effort in the united human advance.
At present it may seem that this is better helped and advanced by many
different nations and cultures living together in one political State-union
than by their political separateness. Temporarily, this may be true to
a certain extent, but let us see within what limits.
The old psychological argument for the forcible inclusion of a subject
nation by a dominant people was the right or advantage of imposing a superior
civilisation upon one that was inferior or upon a barbarous race. Thus
the Welsh and Irish people used to be told that their subjugation was
a great blessing to their countries, their languages petty patois which
ought to disappear as soon as possible, and in embracing English speech,
English institutions, English ideas lay their sole road to civilisation,
culture and prosperity. The British domination in India was justified
by the priceless gift of British civilisation and British ideals, to say
nothing of the one and only true religion, Christianity, to a heathen,
orientally benighted and semi-barbarous nation. All this is now an exploded
myth. We can see clearly enough that the long suppression of the Celtic
spirit and Celtic culture, superior in spirituality if inferior in certain
practical directions to the Latin and Teutonic, was a loss not only to
the Celtic peoples, but to the world. India has vehemently rejected the
pretensions to superiority of British civilisation, culture and religion,
while still admitting, not so much the British, as the modern ideals and
methods in politics and in the trend to a greater social equality; and
it is becoming clear now, even to the more well-informed European minds
that the Anglicisation of India would have been a wrong not only to India
itself but to humanity.
Still it may be said that, if the old principle of the association was
wrong, yet the association itself leads eventually to a good result. If
Ireland has lost for the most part its old national speech and Wales has
ceased to have a living literature, yet as a large compensation the Celtic
spirit is now reviving and putting its stamp on the English tongue spoken
by millions throughout the world, and the inclusion of the Celtic countries
in the British Empire may lead to the development of an Anglo-Celtic life
and culture better for the world than the separate development of the
two elements. India by the partial possession of the English language
has been able to link herself to the life of the modern world and to reshape
her literature, life and culture on a larger basis and, now that she is
reviving her own spirit and ideals in a new mould, is producing an effect
on the thought of the West; a perpetual union of the two countries and
a constant mutual interaction of their culture by this close association
would be more advantageous to them and to the world than their cultural
isolation from each other in a separate existence.
There is a temporary apparent truth in this idea, though it is not the
whole truth of the position, and we have given it full weight in considering
the claims of the imperialistic solution or line of advance on the way
to unity. But even the elements of truth in it can only be admitted, provided
a free and equal union replaces the present abnormal, irritating and falsifying
relations. Moreover, these advantages could only be valuable as a stage
towards a greater unity in which this close association would no longer
be of the same importance. For the final end is a common world-culture
in which each national culture should be, not merged into or fused with
some other culture differing from it in principle or temperament, but
evolved to its full power and could then profit to that end by all the
others as well as give its gains and influences to them, all serving by
their separateness and their interaction the common aim and idea of human
perfection. This would best be served, not by separateness and isolation,
of which there would be no danger, but yet by a certain distinctness and
independence of life not subordinated to the mechanising force of an artificial
unity. Even within the independent nation itself, there might be with
advantage a tendency towards greater local freedom of development and
variation, a sort of return to the vivid local and regional life of ancient
Greece and India and mediaeval Italy; for the disadvantages of strife,
political weakness and precariousness of the nation's independence would
no longer exist in a condition of things from which the old terms of physical
conflict had been excluded, while all the cultural and psychological advantages
might be recovered. A world secure of its peace and freedom might freely
devote itself to the intensification of its real human powers of life
by the full encouragement and flowering of the individual, local, regional,
national mind and power in the firm frame of a united humanity.
What precise form the framework might take, it is impossible to forecast
and useless to speculate; only certain now current ideas would have to
be modified or abandoned. The idea of a world-parliament is attractive
at first sight, because the parliamentary form is that to which our minds
are accustomed; but an assembly of the present unitarian national type
could not be the proper instrument of a free world-union of this large
and complex kind; it could only be the instrument of a unitarian World-State.
The idea of a world-federation, if by that be understood the Germanic
or American form, would be equally inappropriate to the greater diversity
and freedom of national development which this type of world-union would
hold as one of its cardinal principles. Rather some kind of confederation
of the peoples for common human ends, for the removal of all causes of
strife and difference, for interrelation and the regulation of mutual
aid and interchange, yet leaving to each unit a full internal freedom
and power of self-determination, would be the right principle of this
unity.
But, since this is a much looser unity, what would prevent the spirit
of separativeness and the causes of clash and difference from surviving
in so powerful a form as to endanger the endurance of the larger principle
of oneness, - even if that spirit and those causes at all allowed
it to reach some kind of sufficient fulfilment? The unitarian ideal, on
the contrary, seeks to efface these opposite tendencies in their forms
and even in their root cause and by so doing would seem to ensure an enduring
union. But it may be pointed out in answer that, if it is by political
ideas and machinery, under the pressure of the political and economic
spirit that the unity is brought about, that is to say, by the idea and
experience of the material advantages, conveniences, well-being secured
by unification, then the unitarian system also could not be sure of durability.
For in the constant mutability of the human mind and earthly circumstances,
as long as life is active, new ideas and changes are inevitable. The suppressed
desire to recover the lost element of variability, separateness, independent
living might well take advantage of them for what would then be considered
as a wholesome and necessary reaction. The lifeless unity accomplished
would dissolve from the pressure of the need of life within, as the Roman
unity dissolved by its lifelessness in helpless response to a pressure
from without, and once again local, regional, national egoism would reconstitute
for itself fresh forms and new centres.
On the other hand, in a free world-union, though originally starting from
the national basis, the national idea might be expected to undergo a radical
transformation; it might even disappear into a new and less strenuously
compact form and idea of group-aggregation which would not be separative
in spirit, yet would preserve the necessary element of independence and
variation needed by both individual and grouping for their full satisfaction
and their healthy existence.
Moreover, by emphasising the psychological quite as much as the political
and mechanical idea and basis, it would give a freer and less artificial
form and opportunity for the secure development of the necessary intellectual
and psychological change; for such an inner change could alone give some
chance of durability to the unification. That change would be the growth
of the living idea or religion of humanity; for only so could there come
the psychological modification of life and feeling and outlook which would
accustom both individual and group to live in their common humanity first
and most, subduing their individual and group egoism, yet losing nothing
of their individual or group power to develop and express in its own way
the divinity in man which, once the race was assured of its material existence,
would emerge as the true object of human existence.
Sri Aurobindo
in "Social and Political Thought" - "The Ideal of Human
Unity"
SABCL Volume 15
published by Sri
Aurobindo Ashram - Pondicherry
diffusion by SABDA
or
Lotus Light Publications
U.S.A. - Pages 517-524
|
[