|
VI
Now-a-days one hears a great deal of the principle of self-determination by peoples: that is each people should be allowed to work out its own development without outside interference from others-It has been rightly said that this is also the principle of Svadharma which was proclaimed by Shri Krishna on the banks of the Sarasvati river in Ancient India. All nationalists amongst politically servient peoples have always claimed this right for their country. But it is new doctrine in the mouths of dominating nations. The Editor-of the Hibbert Journal writing recently in a London Weekly says: " What is wrong with Germany is simply that she has never learnt to mind her own business and leave other nations to mind theirs. She claims the right to impose her own culture on the rest of the world without consulting it." What European nation however has minded its own business and left other nations to mind theirs; least of all those peoples who have planted themselves all over the earth ? The Editor of the Hibbert Journal says that if civilization had been grounded from the first on the law of " minding one's own business " with less said about " doing good to others " there might not have been so much wealth, but what there was would be worth more. We should be doing each other more good than by what is called social service. There would be less idleness, less inefficiency, less ugliness, less dirt, less shoddy and above all less humbug—less in short of everything which darkens the future of the earth. However this be, the Western has not, in general, admitted any such principle as regards Africans and Asiatics, peoples whom he regards as inferior races, to civilize whom, with some profit to himself, is the so-called "white man's burden." What however he objects to is the administration of his own civilizing medicine to himself. Whatever may be done elsewhere he now objects to any external interference and aggression as between European themselves. It is quite easy to understand the objection. But if an Asiatic may be "improved" and " civilized " through the domination of a "superior" people, it may be asked why should not an European power dominate for its good one of its fellows. On the other hand if we strictly apply the rule that each people should mind its own affairs; what if it minds them badly ? The principle stated gives no right of interference. All European nations have in fact been acting on the principle of interference with other's affairs. Whilst they in fact interfere for their own profit it is possible to give other grounds for their action. Thus it will be said that there is no indefeasable title to any part of the earth's surface. It belongs to those who can rightly use it. Only those can best use the earth who represent the highest state of evolution at which the human race has arrived and with whom power in fact resides. Therefore uncivilized or less civilized races may be displaced. The dispossessor in more modern times assuming the role of trustee combines self-profit with the duty of uplifting his ward to the level of the trustees own civilization. Thus India is alleged by Mr. Archer to be barbarous and the duty of leading Her in the direction of civilized ideals is said to be incumbent on its rulers, a more advanced and progressive people. Each of the leading European powers however considers itself to be highly civilized and therefore any attempt by one to impose its culture on another is resented as uncalled for impudence. Such an one however who might seek to impose it would justify himself on grounds similar to those which are admitted to apply as regards " inferior " races. He would claim that his culture was so superior to the rest as to justify its spread and predominance.
It may be that to-day we are witness to a great change in the relation of the earth's peoplesjo one another; but as regards the past, from the dawn of history until the outbreak of the great war the principles governing the relation of one European people to another or to Asiatic and Africans was force and gain. If it was profitable to dominate another people and if it was possible through the latter's weakness it was done by all the European peoples. Until quite recent times no one thought of alleging that what was undertaken to gain profit for oneself was done with the object of benefitting others. It might in fact benefit them which is another matter.
Is it possible to apply and will the principle of non-interference be applied even to-day ? Will true savages and barbarians be allowed to manage their own affairs on the principle of self-determination and be left either to work out their evolution for themselves or to go lower and then perish. If the principle of self-determination and Svadharma is not applicable it is not likely that at any near date we shall see a philanthropic nation prepared to undertake the education of a backward people without profit for, and perhaps at cost to, itself. On the other hand there will be many claimants for this " burden" if the carrying of it produces a profitable wage. Probably the exponents of the new morality would say that whatever be the profit to the uplifter it must, in order to justify his dominance, be shown that it is also in some substantial degree for the benefit of the subject people. Profit to the governors must be combined with benefit to the governed. In some cases the dominance may be complete, in others less so by way of Protectorate or still looser control according to the degree of difference existing between the respective cultural advancement of the two peoples. When however there is a general cultural equality between two peoples, then the attempted dominance of one over the other, whether for the simple and ancient motive of territorial and economic gain or the more-modern alleged motive of cultural improvement would doubtless be condemned.
Let us leave it to those who have formulated the doctrine of non-interference to work it out honestly, consistently, and without any false hypocrisy. What seems clear however is, that if in the future one nation interferes with another, such action will be sought to be justified on the grounds of the imperfect civilization of the latter,. It is for this reason that Mr. Archer and others, endeavour to show that India is barbarous, unprogressive, mediaeval, superstitious, ignorant, unspiritual and so forth. Those who have hitherto allowed such charges to go against them without reply have shewn less perspicuity than those who have made them. In days, which though past are not old, superior force was considered sufficient justification for dominance and there was no need to seek any other. The times have changed; and it is now considered necessary to satisfy, or at least allege to, the public conscience that political dominance or control is necessary in the interests of the servient people themselves. Upon this matter the spiritual, intellectual and social state of that people is of primary importance. |
