|
On the Integration of the French Settlements in India 1947 1950
The Future Union (A Programme)
In this period of epoch-making changes when India is achieving at this very moment a first form of freedom and the power to
determine her own destiny, it behoves us in French India to consider our situation and make decisions for our own future
which will enable us to live in harmony with the new India and the new world around us. At this juncture, we of the Socialist
Party wish to define our own policy and the future prospects of the French Settlements as we envisage them.1
For a long time past we in these Settlements have watched with an eager sympathy the struggle that has been going on in
British India for self-government and independence and, though we could not take part, have felt it as if it were part of our
own destiny since the achievement of these things could not but herald or accompany our own passage from the state of
dependence as a colony to the freedom and autonomy which all peoples must desire. India has achieved her freedom but as yet
with limitations and under circumstances which it did not desire and which do not admit of a complete rejoicing at the victory;
for it is not the united India for which we had hoped that has emerged, but an India parcelled out and divided and threatened
with perils and difficulties and disadvantages which would not
1 Sri Aurobindo wrote (rather, dictated) this “programme” for the use of the French
India Socialist Party, whose position on the issue of the integration of the French Settlements in India corresponded with his in some respects. It should not be taken as
a definitive statement of his own opinion on the matter. The text was published in a
manifesto issued by the party in June 1947. — Ed.
Page – 481
have been there but for the disunion and the internal quarrels which brought about this unhappy result. Among the leaders
of the country who have reluctantly consented to the settlement made there is no enthusiasm over it but only a regretful acceptance and a firm determination to make the most of what has been won, overcome the difficulties and dangers and achieve for
the country as great a position in the world and as much power and prosperity as is possible for a divided India. For our part
we have received a promise of an autonomy which will make us a free people within the French Union, but this is as yet only
a promise, or a declared policy and the steps have not yet been taken which would make it a practical reality. We have been
demanding a fulfilment of this policy as rapid as possible and there is no real reason why it should not be carried out with
something of the same speed that is marking developments in British India. There there have been complexities and differences
which stood in the way of an easy and early solution, but there are none such here; we have been and are united in our demand
and the change already decided can be and ought to be carried out at once.
But one complexity has begun to arise and threatens to increase if there is further delay in satisfying the aspirations of
our people. The life of French India has had, since its inception, a dual character which points to two different possibilities for
its future destiny if a third solution does not intervene which reconciles the two possibilities. On one side, we in French India
are not in the essentials of our existence a separate people: we and those on the other side of the borders of the five Settlements
are brothers, we are kith and kin, we have the same nationality, the same way and habits of life, the same religions, the same
general culture and outlook, the same languages and literatures, the same traditions; we are Indians, belong to the same society,
we do not feel separate, we have the same feeling of patriotism for our common country; our land is an intimate part of India.
All this would push us naturally to desire to unite together and become parts of a single India. That feeling has not been absent
in the past, but now it is becoming vocal and is the declared
Page – 482
policy and demand of a number among us while others stand on the line between the two possibilities before us and have a
natural inclination to prefer this solution; for it is difficult for any Indian not to look forward towards such a unification in the
future. On the other hand, the history of the past two centuries has developed a certain individuality of the people of French
India and made them a common entity amid the rest. French India has developed different institutions of its own, political,
administrative, judicial, educational, it has its own industries, its own labour legislation and other differentiating characteristics.
There is also the impress of the French language and French culture. All Asiatic countries have been developing a mixed intellectuality, public life and social ideas; our life is Asiatic in its basis with a structure at the top adopted from Europe. In British
India this superstructure has been formed by the use of English as a common language of the educated classes and by the study
of English political ideas and institutions and English literature: in French India the superstructure is French, it is the French
language through which there has been communication and a common public life between the Bengalees, Tamils, Andhras and
Malayalees who constitute the people of French India; we have been looking at the world outside through a study of the French
language and French institutions and French literature. All this has made a difference; it has made it possible and natural for us
to accept the offer made that we should become a free people within the French Union. But this solution can be durable only
if there is some kind of close connection and even union with the rest of India industrial, economic and other, for we depend
on the rest of India for our very food and the necessities of our life and our general prosperity and, if cut off from it, we could
not even live. Apart from all feelings and sentiments this stark necessity demands an intimate co-operation between the new
India and French India.
Under the push of a common Indian patriotism and the
feeling of oneness with the rest of India some are putting forward the claim that we should join immediately whatever Indian
Union emerges from the present embroilments without any other
Page – 483
consideration of any kind. This is a rash and one-sided view of things which we cannot accept. In our political decisions
we must take into account the developments in British India, but it would be erroneous to hold that in all political affairs
we should imitate her. This would show on our part a lack of understanding of local conditions as well as an utter failure of
creative thought so needed at a most critical and constructive period of the history of India. Some go so far as to propose a kind
of self-extinction of each French territory by their merging in a suicidal way into the Indian Union. This would mean that our
towns would become mostly small and unimportant mofussil towns in the mass of what has been British India and would
lose their present status and dignity and vigour of their life and distinctive institutions and much loss and damage to existing
popular interests might ensue. A drastic change and obliteration of this kind seems to us most undesirable; it would bring no
enrichment of life or advantage to the rest of India and no advantage but rather impoverishment of life to French India.
If French India is to enter the Indian Union, it should not be in this way but as an autonomous unit preserving its individual
body and character. All should be done with due regard to its particular position and all decisions should be made according
to the will of her elected representatives: we should also ascertain exactly our economic, social and administrative position so that
any change should not affect adversely any section of the people. Moreover without having any precision about the future States
of India and our place among them it would be utter folly to break our social, cultural, administrative and judicial structure
without any concrete scheme to replace it. The existence of autonomous units with a vivid life and individuality of their
own has always been a characteristic of our country, part of its polity and civilisation and one of the causes of its greatness
and the variety and opulence of Indian culture. The unity of India is desirable but not a mechanical unification and that is
indeed no part of the scheme envisaged by the leaders of India; they envisage a union of autonomous units with a strong centre.
In seeking political unity and independence we must not go on
Page – 484
thinking and working under subjection to imported Western and British notions of political and economic structure. It is patent
through recent developments that a political and purely outward unity with a mechanical uniformity and centralisation would
prove a failure. Whatever we decide let us preserve the principle peculiarly suited to the unique psychological and physical conditions of this great land and the life of its people which was to develop through numerous autonomous centres of culture and
power.
But there are also other considerations which militate
against any such hasty action as has been proposed; we must consider carefully the actual position and possibilities in India
under the peculiar and very unsatisfactory arrangement that has been made. This arrangement has not been freely chosen
by the people and their leaders and does not create a free and united nation; it is a British plan accepted under the duress of
circumstances as unavoidable in order to find a way out of the present state of indecision and drift and put an end to internal
disorder and strife. It is not a definite solution; it seems rather like an opening of a new stage, a further period of trial and
effort towards the true goal. What immediately emerges is not independence but the establishment of two British Dominions
independent of each other and without any arrangement for harmonisation or common action; it is expected that within a
year or so two independent Indias will be the result with different constitutions of their own animated by different and, it may well
be, opposing principles and motives. It is hoped also that this division will be accepted by all as a final solution, both Indias
settling down separately into a peaceful internal development, and that the fierce dissensions, violent and ruinous disturbances
and sanguinary conflicts of recent times will finally disappear. But this is not certain; the solution has not been satisfactory to
any party to the internal struggle and if the new States continue to be divided within themselves into communal camps led by
communal bodies one of which will look outside the State to the other for inspiration and guidance and for the protection
of the community, then tension will continue and the latent
Page – 485
struggle may break out in disturbances, bloodshed and perhaps finally in open war. Into such a condition of things French India
would not care to enter; among us communal dissensions have not been rife, all communities have lived amicably together
and participated peacefully in a common public life; but if we entered into such a state of tension and continued conflict, the
infection would inevitably seize us and there would be the same communal formations and the same undesirable features. We
should be careful therefore not to make any such rash and hasty decisions as some propose but stand apart in our own separate
status and wait for more certain developments. A closer relation with the new India is desirable and necessary, since we are
Indians and French India a part of India intimately connected and dependent on the rest for her prosperity and for her very
existence. But this need not take the form suggested or involve the obliteration of our separate status, a destruction of our
past and its results and the loss of our individual existence. A reconciliation between the two elements of our existence and its
historical development is desirable and possible.
It seems to be supposed by some that we have only to ask
the new Indian Union for inclusion within it and this would automatically accomplish itself without any further difficulty;
but things are not so simple as that. Undoubtedly the sentiment of the Indian people had in the past envisaged an India one
and indivisible and the abolition of the small enclaves of foreign rule such as Portuguese and French India as imperative and
inevitable. But circumstances have shaped differently; India one and indivisible has not emerged and the Indian Union which is
nearest to it and with which alone a fusion would be possible, is not yet established, has still to affirm itself and find and confirm
its strength in very difficult circumstances. In that process it is seeking to establish amicable relations with all foreign powers
and is already in such relations with France. It will desire no doubt either union or a closer relation with French India but
it is not likely to be in a hurry to achieve it through a dispute or conflict with France. It could indeed use means of pressure
without the use of military force which would make the existence
Page – 486
of a separate French India not only difficult and painful but impossible, but it would be likely to prefer a settlement and a
modus vivendi which would respect the wishes of the people of French India, create the necessary co-ordination of economic
and other interests and would be consistent with agreement and friendly relations with the Government and people of France. If,
using the right of self-determination, we in French India freely decided to remain as an autonomous people within the French
Union, the Government of the Indian Union would certainly respect such a choice and might welcome an arrangement which
would make French India not a thorn of irritation but a cultural link and a field of union and co-operation, and perhaps even a
base for a standing friendship and alliance between France and India. In consideration of all these circumstances we are led to
conclude that our best immediate course is to keep our individuality and concentrate on the development of our freedom as
an autonomous people accepting the offer of France to concede to us that status within the French Union and on the basis of
that formula to establish that closer relation and co-operation with the new India which would satisfy our sentiments and is
imperative for our prosperity and even for our existence.
After due examination of all these considerations the Socialist Party puts forward the following programme and asks for the adhesion of all citizens of French India to implement it.
(1) French India to form an autonomous territory within the French Union.
(2) For this the present colonial system and its bureaucratic government must cease to exist, and this should be done as
soon as possible. Neither the people nor any party are willing to remain subjected to the old system, only a few whose professional interests are bound up with the old state of things are in its favour, and any long continuance of it would be a severe
strain on the feelings of the population and would encourage increasing adhesion to the party that favours immediate and
complete severance of all ties with France and the precipitate merging of French India without any further consideration into
whatever new India may emerge from the present situation.
Page – 487
(3) There should be an immediate transfer of powers to the French India Representative Assembly which should have
the general direction of the country’s affairs and the sole power of local legislation. The power of the Governor to govern by
decrees should disappear.
(4) The administration to be responsible to the Assembly.
A Governor should be appointed by the French Government in consultation with the Assembly who will be the link between France and French India and who will preside over the administration with the assistance of an executive council of
ministers.
(5) The status of the population of French India should be
that of a free self-governing people freely consenting to remain in the French Union and freely accepting such relations as are
necessary for that Union.
In this free French India the present recognised institutions
commercial, industrial and others will remain in vigour except in so far as they are legally modified by the Representative
Assembly. The French language will continue as a means of communication between the different parts of French India and
of discussion in the Assembly and of general administration. The educational system, the new University and the Colleges will be
linked with the University and educational system in France. The links with French culture will be retained and enlarged but
also, inevitably a much larger place will be given to our own Indian culture. It is to be hoped this autonomous French India
will become a powerful centre of intellectual development and interchange and meeting place of European and Asiatic culture
and [a] spiritual factor of the world unification which is making its tentative beginning as the most important tendency of the
present day. Thus French India will retain its individuality and historical development but will at the same time proceed towards
a larger future.
On the other side we propose as an important part of our
programme the development of a closer unity with the rest of India. Already we have the standing arrangements by which
the Indian Government has the control and bears the burden
Page – 488
of Posts and Railways and we have also the Customs Union by which Customs barriers between British and French India
were removed; the advantages and even the necessity of such a unification of the system of communications in view of the small
size and geographical separation of the French Settlements are obvious. In the Customs Union some modifications might be
desirable from our point of view, but the principle of it removing the handicap and the previous irritation and conflict
caused by the existence of the Customs barriers must remain acceptable. But there is also needed for our economic future a
co-ordination of the industry and commerce of the country and for that purpose an agreement and a machinery for consultation
and co-ordination should be created.
We further propose that the artificial barriers separating us
into two mutually exclusive nationalities should be laid open and an understanding arrived at by which the nationals of free
India resident in French India should automatically have civic rights and the same should obtain for nationals of French India
resident in the new free India. There should be facilities for any French Indian to occupy Government posts and join Indian
armed forces and to get admission to educational institutions and have access to the opportunities for research and scientific
training and knowledge available in India, while these things should be also available to all Indian nationals in French India.
Thus the advantages of the University which it is proposed to establish in French India should be available to students belonging to the other parts of the country. Possibly even other arrangements might be made by which there should be closer
participation in the political life of the country as a whole.
The final logical outcome of the dual situation of the French
Indian people would be a dual citizenship under certain conditions through which French India could be in the French Union
and participate without artificial barriers in the life of India as a whole. The present state of International Law is opposed to
such a dual citizenship but it would be the natural expression of the two sides of our life situated as we are in India and
having the same fundamental nationality, culture and religion
Page – 489
and social and economic life but also united for a long time by cultural influences and a historical connection with France.
It may well be that such arrangements might become a natural part of the development and turn towards greater unity between
peoples and the breaking down of old barriers which began at San Francisco and a not unimportant step in the movement
towards the removal of the old separatism, oppositions and incompatibilities which are the undesirable side of nationalism
and towards international unity and the growth of a new world and one world which is the future of humanity.
We are of the opinion that if this programme is properly carried out with the approval of public opinion, it will assure
our future evolution and progress without violence or strife. We would be able to take a fuller part in the total life of the Indian
nation and be at the same time an instrument for the closer drawing together of nations and play a part in the international
life of mankind.
We appeal to all progressive forces in France to favour this
line of development so that the actual relation between ourselves which is now that of suzerainty and vassalage should be transformed into one of brotherhood and mutual understanding so that France and India should stand before the world as closely
united.
We fervently appeal to all our brothers and sisters of
Chandernagore, Yanon, Mahe, Karikal and Pondicherry, to the Tamilians, Malayalees, Andhras and Bengalees who for
centuries past have lived together irrespective of caste and creed without any internal strife
— which is our greatest achievement
— not to sever our mutual connection but to show an example of unity transcending all compartmentalism or provincialism.
Let us be united as before. When decisive steps have to be taken for the welfare of the country it is of no avail to be led by
hasty moves and to propose rapid solutions from purely egoistic motives or idleness of thought.
We pray our brothers and sisters not to be led by the fallacies of those who want the continuance of French imperialistic administration or of those who under whatever specious pretences
Page – 490 look forward to the prevalence of chaos and disorder. Let us rise to the task that awaits us and build a strong front of the people to implement our scheme and with an upsurge transgressing all petty differences let us play our part and create a free and united people in a free India and help at the same time towards the creation of a united human world. published June 1947
On the Disturbances of 15 August 1947 in Pondicherry
To The Editor The Statesman, Calcutta Dated, Pondicherry, the 20th August 1947. Dear Sir, There is no foundation [in]2 fact for the rumour which we understand has been published in your columns that Satyagraha has been offered before Sri Aurobindo Ashram.3 There was no Satyagraha of any kind. There was an attack on the Ashram in which one member was stabbed to death and others injured and Ashram buildings stoned. This would surely be a curious and unprecedented form of Satyagraha. The attack took place on August the 15th some hours after the Darshan, which was very successful and attended by thousands of people, was over. The attackers were mostly professional goondas of the town hired and organised for the purpose. We consider it as the result or culmination of a long campaign by a political party which has been making speeches and publishing articles and pamphlets against the Ashram and trying in all ways to damage it in the eyes of the public for the last two years. This was not on political grounds and the attack had nothing to do with the political question. The Ashram is a non-political body. But there are three sections of the people here who are violently opposed to the existence
2 MS or 3 This letter was dictated by Sri Aurobindo to his amanuensis, Nirodbaran, and sent over the signature of his secretary. — Ed.
Page – 491 of the Ashram, the advocates of Dravidisthan, extreme Indian Catholics and the Communists. Everybody in Pondicherry without exception supports the right of self-determination for the people of French India and Sri Aurobindo has always been a firm supporter of that right for all peoples everywhere. Nobody here is for the “continuation of French rule”, but the people were prepared to accept the French proposal of a free and completely autonomous French India within the French Union. It was only when it appeared that the reforms offered by the French Government would fall short of what was promised that the cry arose for the immediate transfer of power and the merging of French India in the Indian Union. Sri Aurobindo, not being a citizen of French India, made no public declaration of his views, but privately supported the views set forth in a manifesto of the French India Socialist party demanding the end of colonial rule and a complete autonomy within the French Union accompanied by a dual citizenship and a close association with the Indian Union which should control Customs, Communications and a common system of Industry and Commerce.4 There was therefore no ground or cause for any Satyagraha. I am writing this as an official contradiction on behalf of the Ashram under the instructions and with the full authority of Sri Aurobindo. Your most sincerely The Secretary
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Pondicherry
Letters to Surendra Mohan Ghosh
[1]
I had wired that I would write a letter of explanation, but I have been unable to do so because we could get no definite information on the points I have mentioned, not even the
4 The reference is to “The Future Union” (pages 481 91), which was written by Sri Aurobindo. — Ed.
Page – 492 question of the alleged refusal to send the money order. It is now suggested that it may have been only a doubt due possibly to a mistaken impression that French territory in India was like France and other French territories a hard currency area subject to restrictions in this matter because of the difficulties created by the dollar exchange. But French India has been declared a soft currency area where the exchange is in rupees and in pounds; so this difficulty cannot arise. Up to now money orders are still coming in. As to the food question, it is now stated that vegetables and fruit from Bangalore will be allowed to come in without hindrance and other food commodities which come under the mischief of the Customs will also be allowed subject to the taking out of a permit by the merchants. The rumour of prohibition was due to a panic among the merchants both of the Union and Pondicherry caused by the creation of the Customs line which comes into operation from today and the additional rumour of drastic measures to be taken to bring pressure on French India to join the Union. If things go well, there may be a difficulty of high prices but nothing worse. At the same time there are signs of tension and we do not know what may develop from these. For instance, it is said that booking of goods of Pondicherry has been stopped on the Railway except for newspaper packages and perishable goods; equally it has been stated that the French authorities are forbidden a transit of local goods out of French India into the Union and have created a post to prevent their passage. That is all for the present. I suppose we shall get some clearer indications once the Customs are in vigour. I shall write afterwards about our own threatened difficulties in French India itself, if they develop. But we badly need some reliable information as to what is likely to be the fate of French India. On the one side the French India municipalities have fixed December for the proposed referendum. If there is a referendum, the voting will go by the usual methods and the result will be whatever the local Government here dictates and not a genuine plebiscite; there would be no chance of an accession
Page – 493 to the Indian Union or a merger unless Goubert and Co would make, as they once tried, a bargain with the Government in Madras or in Delhi. On the other hand, it has been broadly hinted that there will be no plebiscite and the fate of French India will be determined by direct negotiations between the Governments in Paris and in Delhi. But when? We were once informed that it would be in April or June after the return of Baron as High Commissioner but the politicians here are resolute not to allow the return of Baron because he will [be] under the influence of the Ashram — just as Saravane, Counouma, Andre etc. are to be kept out of all positions of authority for the same reason and because they are supposed to be in favour of accession to the Indian Union. 1 April 1949
[2]
I am sending you a statement made regarding our food situation and prospects by Dyuman who is in charge of that department. This is a new situation; formerly, the fruit was stopped, vegetables were passing through the Customs and the Customs officers were very favourable to the Ashram and made no difficulties. All that is now finished; it appears that very strict orders have been given and nothing can pass. Personal supplies in small quantities sent as offerings from Madras no longer arrive. Even the Calcutta merchants who supplied us with food and other goods say that they cannot get permits any longer. We are told that the Railway is no longer booking goods to Pondicherry. A certain number of vegetables of a very high quality are grown in our vegetable gardens; it is not quite certain that the supply of seeds which necessarily comes from outside will not fail us and in that case that resource will go. There are other statements that have been made by responsible people in Madras which indicate a sort of blockade of goods against the French Settlements. The one good thing is that the Railway people here have withdrawn their statement that our books were prohibited and have begun to send by Railway large parcels of our magazines (Advent, Bombay Annual, Path Mandir Annual,
Page – 494 Aditi etc.), so that there is no fear of loss or stoppage there. I may add that we can no longer get our full supply of milk here as the milkmen have no sufficient supply of fodder and Nestlé which helped us is cut off with the rest. At present we have no final or definite news about the things for which we were to rely on Kamraj Nadar. He has only recently returned from Ceylon after which he was to deal with our affairs. Our representatives in Madras were told by him, we hear, that some of these affairs were the province of Madras Government and some could only [be decided]5 at Delhi; he would find out exactly which was which and do what he could [for]6 us; each case will have to be dealt with on its merits. It is now the 6th May and as yet we have heard nothing. So for the moment that is all. 6 May 1949 Projet de loi
NOTE
I do not know that it is necessary for me to say much about the details of this
Incidentally, what exactly is meant by the “
5 MS (dictated) decide
6 MS (dictated) from
Page – 495
that as between the India Government and the Government of people of a Territory subordinate to it there could not be, as
things now stand, any intervention on any matter between them but only as between the India Government and the Government
of France..
There is one point on which I would like to make an observation which I consider of primary importance. The French Government would naturally want the democratic rights it has
conceded to the local Assembly and local bodies to continue in full and the India Government would also, no doubt, like this
new Territory of its own to have a constitution as democratic as that of the other parts of India. But if nothing is changed in local
conditions and freedom is left for a certain type of politicians and party leaders to make use of their opportunities to pervert
everything to their own profit, how are they to be prevented from prolonging the old state of things, in which case the Territory
would easily be turned into a sink of misgovernment and corruption and things will become worse even than in the past. Only
a strong control, a thorough purification of the administration and a period of political discipline in which the population could
develop public spirit, the use and the right use of the powers and the democratic institutions placed at their disposal, could ensure
a change for the better and even that only after a long lapse of time. It cannot be ensured by a paper constitution; the right type
of men in the right place could alone ensure it.
I would myself have thought it safer if the principle of the
agreement between the two Governments and its main features [had] at first been agreed upon and the rest worked out afterwards by careful consideration and discussion. Otherwise there is a risk of disagreements and disaccord in the points of view
arising and holding up or even endangering the successful working out of the agreement. But I understand that their position
in this matter has obliged the Government in Paris to prefer the method actually taken. I hope that the advice you will give will
help the India Government to make the best of things as they are. 12.2.50
Page – 496 |