{"id":1082,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:26","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1082"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:26","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:26","slug":"20-an-open-letter-to-my-countrymen-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/02-karmayogin-volume-02\/20-an-open-letter-to-my-countrymen-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-20_An Open Letter to my Countrymen.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n
\n


\n
\nAn Open Letter to My Countrymen<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nT<\/font><\/span><\/b>HE
\n<\/b><\/span>position of a public man who does his duty in India today is too precarious
\nto permit of his being sure of the morrow. I have recently come out of a year’s
\nseclusion from work for my country on a charge which there was not a scrap of
\nreliable evidence to support, but my acquittal is no security either against
\nthe trumping up of a fresh accusation or the arbitrary law of deportation which
\ndispenses with the inconvenient formality of a charge and the still more
\ninconvenient necessity of producing evidence. Especially with the hounds of the
\nAnglo-Indian Press barking at our heels and continually clamouring for
\nGovernment to remove every man who dares to raise his voice to speak of
\npatriotism and its duties, the liberty of the person is held on a tenure which
\nis worse than precarious. Rumour is strong that
\na case for my deportation has been submitted to the Government by the Calcutta
\nPolice and neither the tranquillity of the country nor the scrupulous legality
\nof our procedure is a guarantee against the contingency of the all-powerful
\nfiat of the Government watch-dogs silencing scruples on the part of those who
\nadvise at Simla. Under such circumstances I have thought it well to address
\nthis letter to my countrymen, and especially to those who profess the
\nprinciples of the Nationalist party, on the needs of the present and the
\npolicy of the future. In case of my deportation it may help to guide some who
\nwould be uncertain of their course of action, and, if I do not return from it,
\nit may stand as my last political will and testament to my countrymen.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nThe situation of
\nthe Nationalist party is difficult but not impossible. The idea of some that
\nthe party is extinct because its leaders are sentenced or deported, is an error
\nwhich comes of looking only at the surface. The party is there, not less
\npowerful and pervading than before, but in want of a policy and a leader. The
\nfirst it may find, the second only God can give it. All great movements wait
\nfor their God-sent leader, the willing channel<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 124<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

of His force, and only when he comes, move forward triumphantly to
\ntheir fulfilment. The men who have led hitherto have been strong men of high gifts
\nand commanding genius, great enough to be the protagonists of any other
\nmovement, but even they were not sufficient to fulfil one which is the chief
\ncurrent of a worldwide revolution. Therefore the Nationalist party, custodians
\nof the future, must wait for the man who is to come, calm in the midst of
\ncalamity, hopeful under defeat, sure of eventual emergence and triumph and
\nalways mindful of the responsibility which they owe not only to their Indian
\nposterity but to the world.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nMeanwhile the
\ndifficulties of our situation ask for bold yet wary walking. The strength of
\nour position is moral, not material. The whole of the physical strength in the
\ncountry belongs to the established authority which our success would, so far as
\nits present form is concerned, abolish by transforming it out of all
\npossibility of recognition. It is natural that it should use all its physical
\nstrength to prevent, so long as it can, that transformation. The whole of the moral strength of the country is with us,
\njustice is with us, Nature is with us. The law of God which is higher than any
\nhuman, justifies our action; youth is for
\nus, the future is ours. On that moral strength we must rely for our survival
\nand eventual success. We must not be tempted by any rash impatience into abandoning
\nthe ground on which we are strong and venturing on the ground on which we are
\nweak. Our ideal is an ideal which no law can condemn:
\nour chosen methods are such that no modern Government can expressly declare
\nthem illegal without forfeiting its claim to be considered a civilised
\nadministration. To that ideal and to those methods we must firmly adhere and
\nrely on them alone for our eventual success. A respect for the law is a
\nnecessary quality for endurance as a nation and it has always been a marked
\ncharacteristic of the Indian people. We must therefore scrupulously observe the
\nlaw while taking every advantage both of the protection it gives and the
\nlatitude it still leaves for pushing forward our cause and our propaganda.
\nWith the stray assassinations which have troubled the country we have no
\nconcern, and, having once clearly and firmly dissociated ourselves from them,
\nwe need notice them no<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 125<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

farther. They are the rank and noxious fruit of a rank and noxious
\npolicy and until the authors of that policy turn from their errors, no human
\npower can prevent the poison-tree from bearing according to its kind. We who
\nhave no voice either in determining the laws of their administration are
\nhelpless in the matter. To deportation and proclamation, the favourite
\ninstruments of men incapable of a wise and strong rule, we can only oppose a
\nsteady and fearless adherence to the propagandism
\nand practice of a lawful policy and a noble ideal.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nOur ideal is that
\nof Swaraj or absolute autonomy free from foreign control. We claim the right of
\nevery nation to live its own life by its own energies according to its own nature and ideals. We reject the claim of aliens
\nto force upon us a civilisation inferior to our own or to keep us out of our
\ninheritance on the untenable ground of a superior fitness. While admitting the
\nstains and defects which long subjection has induced upon our native capacity
\nand energy, we are conscious of that capacity and energy reviving in us. We
\npoint to the unexampled national vigour which has preserved the people of this country through centuries of
\ncalamity and defeat, to the great actions of our forefathers continued even to
\nthe other day, to the many men of intellect and character such as no other
\nnation in a subject condition has been able to produce, and we say that a
\npeople capable of such unheard-of vitality is not one which can be put down as
\na nation of children and incapables. We are
\nin no way inferior to our forefathers. We have brains, we have courage, we have
\nan infinite and various national capacity. All we need is a field and an
\nopportunity. That field and opportunity can only be provided by a national
\ngovernment, a free society and a great Indian culture. So long as these are not
\nconceded to us, we can have no other use for our brains, courage and capacity
\nthan to struggle unceasingly to achieve them.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nOur ideal of
\nSwaraj involves no hatred of any other nation nor of the administration which
\nis now established by law in this country. We find a bureaucratic
\nadministration, we wish to make it democratic; we find an alien government, we
\nwish to make it indigenous; we find a foreign control, we wish to render it
\nIndian. They lie who say that this aspiration necessitates hatred<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 126<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

and violence. Our ideal of patriotism proceeds on the basis of love
\nand brotherhood and it looks beyond the unity of the nation and envisages the
\nultimate unity of mankind. But it is a unity of brothers, equals and free men
\nthat we seek, not the unity of master and serf, of devourer
\nand devoured. We demand the realisation of our corporate existence as a
\ndistinct race and nation because that is the only way in which the ultimate
\nbrotherhood of humanity can be achieved, not by blotting out individual peoples
\nand effacing outward distinctions, but by removing the internal obstacles to
\nunity, the causes of hatred, malice and misunderstanding. A struggle for our
\nrights does not involve hatred of those who mistakenly deny them. It only
\ninvolves a determination to suffer and
\nstrive, to speak the truth boldly and without respect of persons, to use every
\nlawful means of pressure and every source of moral strength in order to
\nestablish ourselves and dis-establish that
\nwhich denies the law of progress.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Our methods are those of self-help and passive resistance. To
\nunite and organise ourselves in order to show our efficiency by the way in
\nwhich we can develop our industries, settle our individual disputes, keep order
\nand peace on public occasions, attend to questions of sanitation, help the sick
\nand suffering, relieve the famine-stricken, work out our intellectual,
\ntechnical and physical education, evolve a Government of our own for our own
\ninternal affairs so far as that could be done without disobeying the law or
\nquestioning the legal authority of the bureaucratic administration, this was
\nthe policy publicly and frankly adopted by the Nationalist party. In Bengal we
\nhad advanced so far as to afford distinct proof of our capacity in almost all
\nthese respects and the evolution of a strong, united and well-organised Bengal
\nhad become a near and certain prospect. The internal troubles which came to a
\nhead at Surat and the repressive policy
\ninitiated immediately afterwards, culminating in the destruction of our
\norganisations and the effective intimidation of Swadeshi workers and
\nsympathisers by official underlings, have both been serious checks to our
\nprogress and seem for the moment to have postponed the realisation of our hopes
\nto a distant future. The check is temporary. Courage and sane statesmanship in
\nour leaders is all that is wanted to restore the courage and the con- <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 127<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

fidence of the people
\nand evolve new methods of organisation which will not come into conflict even
\nwith the repressive laws.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The policy of passive resistance was evolved partly as the necessary
\ncomplement of self-help, partly as a means of putting pressure on the
\nGovernment. The essence of this policy is the refusal of co-operation so long
\nas we are not admitted to a substantial share and an effective control in
\nlegislation, finance and administration. Just as "No representation, no
\ntaxation" was the watchword of American constitutional agitation in the
\neighteenth century, so "No control, no co-operation" should be the
\nwatchword of our lawful agitation \u2014 for constitution we have none \u2014 in the
\ntwentieth. We sum up this refusal of co\u00adoperation in the convenient word
\n"Boycott", refusal of co\u00adoperation in the industrial exploitation of
\nour country, in education, in government, in judicial administration, in the
\ndetails of official intercourse. Necessarily, we have not made that refusal of
\nco-operation complete and uncompromising, but we hold it as a method to be
\nenlarged and pushed farther according as the necessity for moral pressure
\nbecomes greater and more urgent. This is one aspect of the policy. Another is
\nthe necessity of boycott to help our own nascent energies in the field of
\nself-help. Boycott of foreign goods is a necessary condition for the encouragement
\nof Swadeshi industries, boycott of Government schools is a necessary condition
\nfor the growth of national education, boycott of British courts is a necessary
\ncondition for the spread of arbitration. The only question is the extent and
\nconditions of the boycott and that must be determined by the circumstances of
\nthe particular problem in each case. The general spirit of passive resistance
\nhas first to be raised, afterwards it can be organised, regulated and, where
\nnecessary, limited.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The first obstacle to our evolution is the internal dispute which
\nhas for the moment wrecked the Congress and left in its place the hollow and
\nmutilated simulacrum of a National Assembly which met last year at Madras and,
\ndeprived though it is of the support of the most eminent local leaders,
\npurposes to meet again at Lahore. It is a grievous error to suppose that this
\ndispute hung only on personal questions and differences of a trifling importance.
\nAs happens inevitably in such popular contests, personal<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 128<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

questions and differences of minor importance intervened to perplex
\nand embitter the strife, but the real questions in debate were those which
\ninvolved the whole future development of the spirit and form of self-government
\nin this country. Were that spirit and form to be democratic or oligarchic ? Were they to be constitutional in procedure or
\ngoverned by arbitrary and individual choice and discretion ? Was the movement
\nto be progressive and national or conservative and parochial in its aims,
\npolicy and spirit ? These were the real issues. The Nationalist party stood for
\ndemocracy, constitutionalism and progress. The Moderate party, governed by an
\nexaggerated respect for old and esteemed leaders, helped, without clearly
\nunderstanding what they did, those who stood for oligarchy, arbitrary procedure
\nand an almost reactionary conservatism. Personal idiosyncracies,
\npreferences, aversions settled like a thick cloud over the contest, the
\ncombatants on both sides flung themselves on every point of difference material or immaterial as a pretext or a
\nweapon, the tactics of party warfare were freely used and, finally, the deliberate
\nobstinacy of a few Moderate leaders in avoiding discussion of the points of
\ndifference and the unruly ardour of the younger men on both sides led to the
\nviolent scenes at Surat and the break-up of
\nthe Congress. If the question is ever to be settled to the advantage of
\nnational progress, the personal and minor differences must be banished from the
\nfield and the real issues plainly and dispassionately considered.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The questions of particular importance which divide the parties are
\nthe exact form of Swaraj to be held forward as an ideal, the policy of passive
\nresistance and the form of certain resolutions. The last is a question to be
\ndecided by the Congress itself and all that the Nationalists demand is that
\ndiscussion shall not be burked and that they shall not be debarred from their
\nconstitutional right of placing their views before the National Assembly. On
\nthe other points, they cannot sacrifice their ideal or their policy, but their
\ncontention is that these differences ought not in a free deliberative assembly
\nto stand in the way of united progress. The Swaraj matter can easily be settled
\nby the substitution of "full and complete self-government" for
\n"self-government on Colonial lines" in the Swaraj resolution. The<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 129<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

difference as to passive resistance hinges at present on the boycott
\nresolution which the Nationalist party, \u2014 and in this they are supported by a
\nlarge body of Moderate opinion, \u2014 cannot consent to sacrifice. But here also
\nthey are willing to submit the question to the arbitrament of a freely-elected
\nCongress, though they refuse to recognise a close and limited Subjects
\nCommittee as the final authority. It will be seen therefore that the real question
\nthroughout is constitutional. The body which at present calls itself the
\nCongress, has adopted a constitution which is close, exclusive, undemocratic
\nand so framed as to limit the free election of delegates by the people. It
\nlimits itself by proposing a number of articles of faith in a particular form
\nof words to every intending delegate before he can take his seat; it aims at
\nthe election of delegates only by select bodies and associations instead of the
\ndirect election of the people; it excuses many from the chances of election and
\ngives them an undue weight in the disposal of the affairs of the assembly.
\nThese and similar provisions no democratic party can accept. A Nationalist Conference
\nor a Moderate Convention may so guard its integrity, but the Congress is and
\nmust be a National Assembly admitting freely all who are duly elected by the
\npeople. The proposed passing of this reactionary constitution by a body already
\nlimited under its provisions will not cure the constitutional defect. It is
\nonly a Congress elected on the old lines that can determine the future
\nprovisions for its constitution and procedure with any hope of universal
\nacceptance.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nIt is not
\ntherefore by any manipulation of the Congress or Convention that a solution of
\nthe problem can be brought about, but by the Provincial Conferences empowering
\nthe leaders of both parties to meet in Committee and provide for an arrangement
\nwhich will heal differences and enable the Congress to work smoothly and freely
\nin the future. If there is a minority who refuse to associate themselves with
\nany such attempt, the majority will be justified by the mandate of the Provinces
\nin disregarding them and meeting to carry out the popular wish. Once the lines
\nare settled they can be submitted to the free choice of a freely-elected
\nCongress for acceptance, rejection or modification. This will restore the
\nCongress on sound constitutional lines<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 130<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

in which the bitter experience of the past may be relied on to prevent those mistakes of obstinacy and passion
\nwhich prevented a solution of the problem at Surat.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nOutside the Congress
\nthe chances of united working are more complete than within it. There are only
\ntwo questions which are likely either to trouble harmony or hamper action. The
\nfirst is the question of the acceptance or rejection of the present reforms
\nintroducing, as they do, no element of popular control nor any fresh
\nconstitutional principle except the unsound principle of privileged
\nrepresentation for a single community. This involves the wider question of
\nco-operation. It is generally supposed that the Nationalist party is committed
\nto the persistent and uncompromising refusal of co-operation until they get
\nthe full concession of Swaraj. Nationalist
\npublicists have not cared to combat this error explicitly because they were
\nmore anxious to get their ideal accepted and the spirit of passive resistance
\nand complete self-help popularised than to discuss a question which was not
\nthen a part of practical politics. But it is obvious that a party advancing
\nsuch a proposition would be a party of doctrinaires and idealists, not of
\npractical thinkers and workers. The Nationalist principle is the principle of
\n"No control, no co\u00adoperation". Since all control has been refused,
\nand so long as all control is refused, the Nationalist party preaches the
\nrefusal of co-operation as complete as we can make it. But it is evident that
\nif, for instance, the power of imposing protective duties were given to a
\npopular and elective body, no serious political party would prefer persistence
\nin commercial boycott to the use of the powers conceded. Or if education were
\nsimilarly made free of official control and entrusted to a popular body, as
\nLord Reay once thought of entrusting it, no
\nsensible politician would ask the nation to boycott that education. Or if the
\ncourts were manned by Indian judges and made responsible not to the Executive
\nbut to a Minister representing the people, arbitration would immediately take
\nits place as a supplementary aid to the regular courts. So also the refusal to
\nco-operate in an administration which excludes the people from an effective
\nvoice does not involve a refusal to co-operate in an administration of which
\nthe people are an effective part. The refusal of autocratic gifts does not in-<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 131<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\nvolve a refusal to
\ntake up popular rights inalienably secured to the people. It is on the contrary
\nwith the object of compelling the concession of the various elements of Swaraj
\nby peaceful moral pressure and in the absence of such concessions developing
\nour own institutions to the gradual extrusion and final supplanting of
\nbureaucratic institutions that the policy of self-help and passive resistance
\nwas started. This acceptance of popular rights does not imply the abandonment
\nof the ideal of complete autonomy or of the use of passive resistance in case
\nof any future arbitrary interference with the rights of the people. It implies
\nonly the use of partial Swaraj as a step and means towards complete Swaraj.
\nWhere the Nationalists definitely and decisively part company with an influential
\nsection of the Moderates is in refusing to accept any petty or illusory
\nconcession that will draw away our aspirations from their unalterable ideal or
\ndelude the people into thinking that they have secured real rights.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\nAnother question
\nis that of cleaving to and enforcing the Boycott. In Bengal, even if there are
\nsome who are timid or reactionary enough to shrink from the word or the thing,
\nthe general feeling in its favour is emphatic and practically unanimous. But
\nit is time now to consider seriously the question of regulating the Boycott.
\nNationalists have always demurred to the proviso "as far as possible"
\nin the Swadeshi resolution on account of the large loophole its vagueness left
\nto the hesitating and the lukewarm, and they have preferred the form "at
\na sacrifice". But it will now be well if we face the concrete problems of
\nthe Boycott. While we must keep it absolute wherever Swadeshi articles are
\nprocurable as also in respect to pure luxuries with which we can dispense, we
\nmust recognise that there are necessities of life and business for which we
\nhave still to go to foreign countries. The public ought to be guided as to the
\nchoice of the countries which we shall favour in the purchase of these
\narticles, \u2014 necessarily they must be countries sympathetic to Indian
\naspirations, \u2014 and those which we shall exclude. The failure to deal with this
\nquestion is largely responsible for the laxity of our political boycott and
\nour consequent failure to get the Partition rescinded. There are also other
\nquestions, such as the attempt of shopkeepers and merchants to pass off foreign goods wholesale as Swadeshi, which<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 132<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

must be taken up at once if the movement is not to suffer a serious
\nsetback.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

A final difficulty remains, \u2014 by what organisation are we to carry
\non the movement even when these questions are settled ?
\nThe Nationalist programme was to build up a great deliberative and
\nexecutive organisation on the basis of a reconstituted Congress, and this scheme
\nstill remains the only feasible means of organising the country. Even if a
\nunited Congress cannot be secured, the provinces ought to organise themselves
\nseparately, and perhaps this may prove to be the only possible way of restoring
\nthe Congress, by reconstituting it from the bottom. Even the District organisations, however, cannot work effectively without hands, and these we
\nhad provided for in the Sabhas and Samitis of young men which sprang up on all sides
\nand were just succeeding in forming an efficient network of organisation all
\nover Bengal. These are now being suppressed by administrative order; it
\nbecomes a question whether we cannot replace them by a loose and elusive organisation of young men in groups ordering each its own work by common
\nagreement and working hand in hand, but without a rigid or definite
\norganisation. I throw out the suggestion for consideration by the leaders of
\nthought and action in the provinces where unity seems at all feasible.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

This then is the situation as it presents itself to me. The policy I
\nsuggest to the Nationalist party may briefly be summed up as follows: \u2014<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\n1. Persistence with a strict regard to law in a
\npeaceful policy of self-help and passive resistance.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

2. The regulation of our attitude towards
\nthe Government by the principle of "No control, no co-operation".<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

3. A rapprochement<\/i> with the Moderate
\nParty wherever possible and the reconstitution
\nof a united Congress.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

4. The regulation of the Boycott Movement so
\nas to make both the political and the economic boycott effective.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

5. The organisation of the Provinces, if not
\nof the whole country, according to our original programme.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n


\n6. A system of
\nco-operation which will not contravene the<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 133<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nlaw and will yet enable workers to proceed
\nwith the work of self-help and national efficiency, if not quite so effectively
\nas before, yet with energy and success.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nJuly,
\n1909<\/span><\/i>  <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nCalcutta  <\/i><\/font><\/span>
\n                                                                                                                                                                                                    aurobindo
\n<\/span>ghose<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 134<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n


\n\t
\n\tHOME<\/span><\/a><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An Open Letter to My Countrymen   THE position of a public man who does his duty in India today is too precarious to permit…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-02-karmayogin-volume-02","wpcat-23-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}