{"id":3149,"date":"2013-07-13T01:46:19","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:46:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3149"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:46:19","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:46:19","slug":"33-the-conditions-of-a-free-world-union-vol-the-ideal-of-human-unity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/the-ideal-of-human-unity\/33-the-conditions-of-a-free-world-union-vol-the-ideal-of-human-unity","title":{"rendered":"-33_The Conditions of a Free World-Union.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\nCHAPTER XXXI<\/b> <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nTHE CONDITIONS OF A
\nFREE WORLD-UNION<\/b><\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nA<\/font> FREE<\/font> world-union must in its very nature be a complex unity based on a diversity and that diversity must be based
\non free self-determination. A mechanical unitarian system would
\nregard in its idea the geographical groupings of men as so many
\nconveniences for provincial division, for the convenience of
\nadministration, much in the same spirit as the French Revolution reconstituted France with an entire disregard of old natural
\nand historic divisions. It would regard mankind as one single
\nnation and it would try to efface the old separative national spirit
\naltogether; it would arrange its system probably by continents
\nand sub-divide the continents by convenient geographical demarcations. In this other quite opposite idea, the geographical, the
\nphysical principle of union would be subordinated to a psychological principle; for not a mechanical division, but a living
\ndiversity would be its object. If this object is to be secured, the
\npeoples of humanity must be allowed to group themselves according to their
\nfree-will and their natural affinities; no constraint or force could be allowed to compel an unwilling nation
\nor distinct grouping of peoples to enter into another system or
\njoin itself or remain joined to it for the convenience, aggrandisement or political necessity of another people or even for the
\ngeneral convenience, in disregard of its own wishes. Nations or
\ncountries widely divided from each other geographically like
\nEngland and Canada or England and Australia might cohere
\ntogether. Nations closely grouped locally might choose to stand <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-283<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\napart, like England and Ireland or like Finland and Russia,
\nUnity would be the largest principle of life, but freedom would
\nbe its foundation stone.* <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nIn a world built on the present political and commercial
\nbasis this system of groupings might present often insuperable
\ndifficulties or serious disadvantages; but in the condition
\n<\/b>of
\n<\/b>things in which alone a free world-union would be possible,
\nthese difficulties and disadvantages would cease to operate. Military necessity of forced union for strength of defence or for power
\nof aggression would be non-existent, because war would no
\nlonger be possible; force as the arbiter of international differences and a free world-union are two quite incompatible ideas
\nand practically could not co-exist. The political necessity would
\nalso disappear; for it is largely made up of that very spirit of
\nconflict and the consequent insecure conditions of international
\nlife apportioning predominance in the world to the physically
\nand organically strongest nations out of which the military necessity arose. In a free world-union determining its affairs and
\nsettling its differences by agreement, or, where agreement failed,
\nby arbitration, the only political advantage of including large
\nmasses of men not otherwise allied to each other in a single
\nState would be the greater influence arising from mass and population. But this influence could not work if the inclusion were
\nagainst the will of the nations brought together in the State; for
\nthen it would rather be a source of weakness and disunion in
\nthe State’s international action\u2014unless indeed it were allowed
\nin the international system to weigh by its bulk and population
\nwithout regard to the will and opinion of the peoples constituting
\nit. Thus the population of Finland and Poland might swell the
\nnumber of voices which a united Russia could count in the
\ncouncil of the nations, but the will, sentiment and opinions of
\nthe Finns and Poles be given no means of expression in that <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n* Necessarily to every principle there must be in application a reasonable
\nlimit; otherwise fantastic and impracticable absurdities might take the place of
\na living truth. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-284<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nmechanical and unreal unity.* But this would be contrary to
\nthe modem sense of justice and reason and incompatible with
\nthe principle of freedom which could alone ensure a sound and
\npeaceful basis for the world-arrangement. Thus the elimination
\nof war and the settlement of differences by peaceful means would
\nremove the military necessity for forced unions; while the right
\nof every people to a free voice and status in the world would
\nremove its political necessity and advantage. The elimination of
\nwar and the recognition of the equal rights of all peoples are
\nintimately bound up with each other. That interdependence,
\nadmitted for a moment, even though imperfectly, during the
\nEuropean conflict, will have to be permanently accepted if there
\nis to be any unification of the race. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe economic question remains, and it is the sole important problem of a vital and physical order which might possibly
\npresent in this kind of world-arrangement any serious difficulties, or in which the advantages of a unitarian system might
\nreally outweigh those of this more complex unity. In either,
\nhowever, the forcible economic exploitation of one nation by
\nanother, which is so large a part of the present economic order,
\nwould necessarily be abolished. There would remain the possibility of a sort of peaceful economic struggle, a separativeness,
\na building up of artificial barriers,\u2014a phenomenon which has
\nbeen a striking and more and more prominent feature of the
\npresent commercial civilisation. But it is likely that once the element of struggle were removed from the political field, the
\nstress of the same struggle in the economic field would greatly
\ndecrease. The advantages of self-sufficiency and predominance,
\nto which political rivalry and struggle and the possibility of
\nhostile relations now give an enormous importance, would lose
\nmuch of their stringency and the advantages of a freer give and
\ntake would become more easily visible. It is obvious, for example,
\nthat an independent Finland would profit much more by <\/b>encouraging <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n* The inclusion of India in the League of Nations has evidently been an
\narrangement of this type.<\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-285<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe passage of Russian commerce through Finnish
\nports or an Italian Trieste by encouraging the passage of the
\ncommerce of the present Austrian provinces than by setting up
\na barrier between itself and its natural feeders. An Ireland politically or administratively independent, able to develop its
\nagricultural and technical education and intensification of productiveness, would find a greater advantage in sharing the
\nmovement of the commerce of Great Britain than in isolating
\nitself, even as Great Britain would profit more by an agreement
\nwith such an Ireland than by keeping her a poor and starving
\nhelot on her estate. Throughout the world, the idea and fact of
\nunion once definitely prevailing, unity of interests would be more
\nclearly seen and the greater advantage of agreement and mutual
\nparticipation in a naturally harmonised life over the feverish
\nartificial prosperity created by a stressing of separative barriers.
\nThat stressing is inevitable in an order of struggle and international competition; it would be seen to be prejudicial in an order
\nof peace and union which would make for mutual accommodation.
\nThe principle of a free world-union being that of the settlement
\nof common affairs by common agreement, this could not be confined to the removal of political differences and the arrangement
\nof 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
\nworld in its new order by mutual and common agreement would
\nhave to be added as the third condition of a free union. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThere remains the psychological question of the advantage
\nto the soul of humanity, to its culture, to its intellectual, moral,
\naesthetic, spiritual growth. At present, the first great need of the
\npsychological life of humanity is the growth towards a greater
\nunity; but its need is that of a living unity, not in the externals
\nof civilisation, in dress, manners, habits of life, details of political, social and economic order, not a uniformity, which is the
\nunity towards which the mechanical age of civilisation has been
\ndriving, but a free development everywhere with a constant <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-286<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nfriendly interchange, a close understanding, a feeling of our
\ncommon humanity, its great common ideals and the truths
\ntowards which it is driving and a certain unity and correlation of
\neffort in the united human advance. At present, it may seem
\nthat this is better helped and advanced by many different nations and cultures living together in one political State-union
\nthan by their political separateness. Temporarily, this may be
\ntrue to a certain extent, but let us see within what limits. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe old psychological argument for the forcible inclusion
\nof a subject nation by a dominant people was the right or advantage of imposing a superior civilisation upon one that was
\ninferior or upon a barbarous race. Thus the Welsh and Irish
\npeople used to be told that their subjugation was a great blessing
\nto their countries, their languages petty patois which ought to
\ndisappear as soon as possible, and in embracing English speech,
\nEnglish institutions, English ideas lay their sole road to civilisation, culture and prosperity. The British domination in India
\nwas justified by the priceless gift of British civilisation and
\nBritish ideals, to say nothing of the one and only true religion,
\nChristianity, to a heathen, orientally benighted and semi-barbarous nation. All this is now an exploded myth. We can see
\nclearly enough that the long suppression of the Celtic spirit and
\nCeltic culture, superior in spirituality if inferior in certain practical directions to the Latin and Teutonic, was a loss not only
\nto the Celtic peoples, but to the world. India has vehemently
\nrejected the pretensions to superiority of British civilisation, culture and religion, while still admitting, not so much the British,
\nas the modern ideals and methods in politics and in the trend to
\na greater social equality; and it is becoming clear now, even, to
\nthe more well-informed European minds that the Anglicisation
\nof India would have been a wrong not only to India itself but to
\nhumanity. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nStill it may be said that, if the old principle of the association was wrong, yet the association itself leads eventually to a
\ngood result. If Ireland has lost for the most part its old national
\nspeech and Welsh has ceased to have a living literature, yet as <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-287<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\na large compensation the Celtic spirit is now receiving and putting its stamp on the English tongue spoken by millions throughout the world, and the inclusion of the Celtic countries in the
\nBritish Empire may lead to the development of an Anglo-Celtic
\nlife and culture better for the world than the separate development of the two elements. India by the partial possession of the
\nEnglish language has been able to link herself to the life of the
\nmodern world and to reshape her literature, life and culture on
\na larger basis and, now that she is reviving her own spirit and
\nideals in a new mould, is producing an effect on the thought
\nof the West; a perpetual union of the two countries and a constant mutual interaction of their culture by this close association
\nwould be more advantageous to them and to the world than
\ntheir cultural isolation from each other in a separate existence. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThere is a temporary apparent truth in this idea, though it
\nis not the whole truth of the position, and we have given it full
\nweight in considering the claims of the imperialistic solution or
\nline of advance on the way to unity. But even the elements of
\ntruth in it can only be admitted, provided a free and equal union
\nreplaces the present abnormal, irritating and falsifying relations.
\nMoreover, these advantages could only be valuable as a stage
\ntowards a greater unity in which this close association would
\nno longer be of the same importance. For the final end is a
\ncommon world-culture in which each national culture should
\nbe, not merged into or fused with some other culture differing
\nfrom it in principle or temperament, but evolved to its full
\npower and could then profit to that end by all the others as well
\nas give its gains and influences to them, all serving by their
\nseparateness and their interaction the common aim and idea of
\nhuman perfection. This would best be served, not by separateness and isolation, of which there would be no danger, but yet
\nby a certain distinctness and independence of life not subordinated to the mechanising force of an artificial unity. Even within
\nthe independent nation itself, there might be with advantage a
\ntendency towards greater local freedom of development and variation,<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-288<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\na sort of return to the vivid local and regional life of ancient
\nGreece and India and mediaeval Italy; for the disadvantages of
\nstrife, political weakness and precariousness of the nation’s independence would no longer exist in a condition of things from
\nwhich the old terms of physical conflict had been excluded,
\nwhile all the cultural and psychological advantages might be
\nrecovered. A world secure of its peace and freedom might freely
\ndevote itself to the intensification of its real human powers of
\nlife by the full encouragement and flowering of the individual,
\nlocal, regional, national mind and power in the firm frame of
\na united humanity. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWhat 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
\na world-parliament is attractive at first sight because the parliamentary form is that to which our minds are accustomed; but
\nan assembly of the present unitarian national type could not
\nbe the proper instrument of a free world-union of this large
\nand complex kind; it could only be the instrument of a unitarian
\nWorld-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
\ncardinal principles. Rather some kind of confederation of the
\npeoples for common human ends, for the removal of all causes
\nof strife and difference, for inter-relation and the regulation of
\nmutual aid and interchange, yet leaving to each unit a full internal freedom and power of self-determination, would be the
\nright principle of this unity, <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBut, since this is a much looser unity, what would prevent
\nthe spirit of separativeness and the causes of clash and difference
\nfrom surviving in so powerful a form as to endanger the endurance of the larger principle of oneness,\u2014even if that spirit
\nand those causes at all allowed it to reach some kind of sufficient
\nfulfilment? The unitarian ideal, on the contrary, seeks to efface <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-289<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nthese opposite tendencies in their forms and even in their root
\ncauses and by so doing would seem to ensure an enduring union.
\nBut it may be pointed out in answer that, if it is by political ideas
\nand machinery, under the pressure of the political and economic
\nspirit that the unity is brought about, that is to say, by the idea
\nand experience of the material advantages, conveniences, wellbeing secured by unification, then the unitarian system also
\ncould not be sure of durability. For in the constant mutability of
\nthe human mind and earthly circumstances, as long as life is
\nactive, 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
\nthen be considered as a wholesome and necessary reaction. The
\nlifeless unity accomplished would dissolve from the pressure of
\nthe need of life within, as the Roman unity dissolved by its lifelessness in helpless response to a pressure from without, and
\nonce again local, regional, national egoism would reconstitute for
\nitself fresh forms and new centres. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nOn the other hand, in a free world-union, though originally
\nstarting 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
\ngroup-aggregation which would not be separative in spirit, yet
\nwould preserve the necessary element of independence and
\nvariation needed by both individual and grouping for their full
\nsatisfaction 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
\nopportunity for the secure development of the necessary intellectual and psychological change, for such an inner change
\ncould alone give some chance of durability to the unification.
\nThat change would be the growth of the living idea or religion
\nof humanity; for only so could there come the psychological
\nmodification of life and feeling and outlook which would accustom both the individual and group to live in their common
\nhumanity first and most, subduing their individual and group <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-290<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\negoism, yet losing nothing of their individual or group power to
\ndevelop and express in its own way the divinity in Man which,
\nonce the race was assured of its material existence, would emerge
\nas the true object of human existence. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage-291<\/font><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CHAPTER XXXI   THE CONDITIONS OF A FREE WORLD-UNION   A FREE world-union must in its very nature be a complex unity based on a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-ideal-of-human-unity","wpcat-63-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3149","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=3149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}