Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 4
Letter ID: 976
Sri Aurobindo — Roy, Dilip Kumar
September 4, 1943
I just received (2.9.43) a letter from Krishnaprem in which he has qualified his objection to violence as his letter enclosed will explain. I have no doubt hereanent specially after your approval of violence against Hitler who has become such a menace to civilisation. Only one point sometimes gives rise to misgivings in me. This I told Nolini when he read out to us his masterly analysis on the values at stake in this War and the real issue: it is his comparing this war to Kurukshetra implying (when he identified Hitler’s cause with the Asura’s) that the Allies were here the Pandavas which is exactly what troubles Krishnaprem. You know I had never, from the very beginning, doubted the wisdom of having all our efforts (the entire humanity’s) directed and all our available forces organised against Hitler; but is it not unwise to compare him with Duryodhana (though I myself have done it), for then do not the Allied Powers become the Pandavas, by a kind of inference as it were? I have received of late from correspondents and friends objections to this our dubbing the Allies as ‘modern Pandavas’.
Those were protagonists of virtue (dharma) and unselfishness which can hardly be said of the Allies who are all exploiters of weaker races and imperialistic. Krishnaprem too has felt doubtful about the Allies being as exemplary as the Pandavas. Could you kindly throw some light on this question? It is, I think, somewhat important, that is why I ask.
What I have said is not that the Allies have never done wrong things, but that they stand on the side of the evolutionary forces. I have not said that at random, but on what to me are clear grounds of fact. What you speak of is the dark side. All nations and governments have shown that side in their dealings with each other – at least all who had the strength and got the chance. I hope you are not expecting me to believe that there are or have been virtuous governments and unselfish and sinless peoples? It is only individuals and not too many of them who can be described in that style. But there is the other side also. Your correspondents are condemning the Allies on grounds that people in the past would have stared at, on the basis of modern ideals of international conduct; but looked at like that, all big nations and many small ones have black records. But who created these ideals or did most to create them (liberty, democracy, equality, international justice and the rest)? Well, America, France, England – the present Allied nations. They have all been imperialistic and still bear the burden of their past, but they have also deliberately spread these ideals and introduced self-governing bodies and parliamentary institutions, where they did not exist; and whatever the relative worth of these things, they have been a stage, even if a still imperfect stage, in a forward evolution. (What about the others? What about the Axis’ new order? Hitler, for example, says it is a crime to educate the coloured peoples, they must be kept as serfs and labourers.) England has helped certain nations to be free without seeking any personal gain; she has conceded independence to Egypt and Eire after a struggle, to Irak without a struggle. On the whole, she has been for some time moving away steadily from imperialism towards a principle of free association and co-operation; the British commonwealth of England and the Dominions is something unique and unprecedented, a beginning of new things in that direction.
She is turning in spirit in the direction of a world-union of some kind after the war; her new generation no longer believes in an “imperial mission”; she has offered India Dominion independence, or even if she prefers it she can choose or press on to isolated independence after the war, on the base of an agreed free constitution to be chosen by Indians themselves; and though, it has been feared, this leaves a loophole for reactionary delay, it is in itself extremely reasonable and it is the Indians themselves with their inveterate habit of disunion who will be responsible if they are imbecile enough to reject the opportunity. All that is what I call evolution in the right direction – however slow and imperfect and hesitating. As for America she has forsworn her past imperialistic policies in regard to Central and South America, in Cuba, the Philippines – everywhere apart from some islands in the Pacific which would go plop into other hands if she withdrew from them. It is perhaps possible, some suggest, that she may be tempted towards a sort of financial imperialism, the rule of the Almighty American dollar, by her new sense of international power, or led into other mistakes, but if so she may find [succour] from her other strong tendencies that she will soon withdraw from it. The greater danger is that she may retire again into a selfish isolationism after the war and so destroy or delay the chance of a possible beginning that they may [lead eventually] to [some] beginning of a free world-union. But still there again is the evolutionary force. Is there a similar trend on the part of the Axis? The answer is plain enough both from their own declarations and their behaviour. Avowedly and open, Nazi Germany today stands for the reversal of this evolutionary tendency, for the destruction of the new international outlook, the new Dharma, for a reversion not only to the past, but to a far back primitive and barbaric ideal. She fully intended to impose it on the whole earth, but would have done so if she had had, as for a time she seemed to have, the strength to conquer. There can be no doubt or hesitation here, if we are for the evolutionary future of mankind, we must recognize that it is only the victory of the Allies that can save it. At the very least, they are at the moment the instruments of the evolutionary forces to save mankind’s failure, and the declaration of their [aims] show that they are conscious of it. Other elements and notions there are, but the main issue is here. One has to look at things on all sides, to see them steadily and whole. Once more, it is the forces working behind that I have to look at, I don’t want to go blind among surface details. The future has first to be safeguarded; only then can present troubles and contradictions have a chance to be solved and eliminated.
For us the question put by you does not arise. The Mother made it plain in a letter which has been made public that we did not consider the war as a fight between nations and governments (still less between good people and bad people) but between two forces, the Divine and the Asuric. What we have to see is on which side men and nations put themselves; if they put themselves on the right side, they at once make themselves instruments of the Divine purpose in spite of all defects, errors, wrong movements and actions (past or present or possible backsliding in the future) which are common to human nature and to all human collectivities. The victory of one side (the Allies) would keep the path open for the evolutionary forces; the victory of the other side would drag back humanity, degrade it horribly and might lead even, at the worst, to its failure as a race, as others in the past evolution failed and perished. That is the whole question and all other considerations are either irrelevant or of a minor importance. The Allies at least stood for human values, though they may often have acted against their own best ideals (human beings always do that); Hitler stands for diabolical values or for human values exaggerated in the wrong way until they become diabolical (e.g. the “virtues” of the Herrenvolk, the master race). That does not make the English or Americans nations of spotless angels nor the Germans a wicked and sinful race, but as an indicator it has a decisive importance.
Nolini, I suppose, gave the Kurukshetra example not as an exact parallel but as a traditional instance of a war between two world-forces in which the side favoured by the Divine triumphed, because its leaders made themselves his instruments. I don’t suppose he envisaged it as a battle between virtue and wickedness or between good and evil men or intended to equate the British with the Pandavas, nations with individuals or even individuals with individuals, or shall we say, Stafford Cripps with Yudhishtir, Churchill with Bhima and General Montgomery with Arjuna? After all, were even the Pandavas virtuous without defect, calm and holy and quite unselfish and without passions? There are many incidents in the Mahabharata which seem to show the contrary, that they had their defects and failings.
And in the Pandava army and its leaders there must have been many who were not paragons of virtue, while there were plenty of good men and true on Duryodhana’s side. Unselfishness? but were not the Pandavas fighting to establish their own claims and interests – just and right, no doubt, but still personal claims and self-interest? Theirs was a righteous battle, dhaima-yuddha, but it was for right and justice in their own case. The Allies have as good or even a better case and reason to call theirs a righteous quarrel, for they are fighting not only for themselves, for their freedom and very existence, but for the existence, freedom, maintenance of natural rights of other nations, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch, French, Greece, Yugoslavia and a vast number of others not yet directly threatened; they too claim to be fighting for a Dharma, for civilized values, for the preservation of ideals and in view of what Hitler represents and openly professes and what he wishes to destroy, their claim has strong foundations. And if imperialism is under all circumstances a wickedness, then the Pandavas are tinted with that brush, for they used their victory to establish their empire continued after them by Parikshit and Janamejaya. Could not modern humanism and pacifism make it a reproach against the Pandavas that these virtuous men (including Krishna) brought about a huge slaughter (alas for Ahimsa!) that they might establish their sole imperial rule over all the numerous free and independent peoples of India? Such a criticism would be grotesquely out of place, but it would be a natural result of weighing ancient happenings in the scales of modern ideals. As a matter of fact such an empire was a step in the right direction then, just as a world-union of free peoples would be a step in the right direction now – and in both cases the right consequences of a terrific slaughter1. I don’t see why Hitler should
not be compared to Duryodhana, except that Duryodhana, if alive, might complain indignantly that the comparison was a monstrous and scandalous injustice to him and that he never did anything like what Hitler has done. By the way, what about Krishna’s “jahi satmm, bhunjasva rajyaiii sainrddham”? [Overcome the enemy, enjoy the rich kingdom.] An unholy and unethical bribe? Or what on earth did he mean by it? But battle and conquest and imperial rule were then a Dharma and consecrated by a special form of sacrifice. We should remember that conquest and rule over subject peoples were not regarded as wrong either in ancient or mediaeval times and even quite recently but as something great and glorious; men did not see any special wickedness in conquerors or conquering nations. Just government of subject peoples was envisaged, but nothing more – exploitation was not excluded. No doubt, many nations in the past were jealous of their own independence and some like the Greeks and later the English had the ideal of freedom [?] of individual liberty. But the [passion] for individual liberty went along in ancient times with the [institution] of slavery which no Greek democrat ever thought to be wrong; no Greek state [or peoples] thought it an injustice to take away the freedom of other [peoples], still less of foreign peoples, or decried it when found to rule over subject races. The same inconsistency has held sway over ideas [until recent] times and still holds sway over [international] [practice] even now. The modern ideas on the subject, the right of all to liberty, both individuals and nations, the immorality of conquest and empire, or, short of such absolutist compromises as the British idea of training subject races for democratic freedom, are new values, an evolutionary movement, a new Dharma which has only begun slowly and initially to influence practice – an infant Dharma that would be throttled for good if Hitler succeeded in his “Avataric” mission and established his new “religion” over all the earth. Subject nations naturally accept the new Dharma and severely criticise the old imperialisms; it is to be hoped that they will practise what they now preach when they themselves become strong and rich and powerful. But the best will be if a new world-order evolves which will make the old things 
impossible – a difficult task, but not, with God’s grace, absolutely impracticable.
The Divine takes men as they are and uses them as His instruments even if they are not flawless in character, without stain or sin or fault, exemplary [?], or angelic, holy and pure. If they are of good will, if, to use the Biblical phrase, they are on the Lord’s side, that is enough for the work to be done. Even if I knew that the Allies (I am speaking of the “big” nations, America, Britain, China) would misuse their victory or bungle the peace or partially at least spoil the opportunities open to the human world by that victory, I would still put my force behind them. At any rate things could not be one-hundredth part as bad as they would be under Hitler. The ways of the Lord would still be open – to keep them open is what matters. Let us stick to the real issue and leave for a later time all side-issues and minor issues or hypothetical problems that would cloud the one all-important and tragic issue before us.
P.S. This is in answer to what is implied in your letter and, I suppose, in those of your correspondents, not to anything in Krishnaprem’s letter. His observations are all right, but circumstances alter cases. Ours is a Sadhana which involves not only devotion or union with the Divine or a perception of Him in all things and beings but also action as workers and instruments and a work to be done in the world, a spiritual force to be brought on the world, under difficult conditions; then one has to see one’s way and do what is commanded and support what has to be supported, even if it means war and strife carried on whether through chariots and bows and arrows or tanks and cars and American bombs and planes, in either case a ghoram karma [a dreadful work]: the means and times and persons differ, but it does not seem to me that Nolini is wrong in seeing in it the same problem as in Kurukshetra. As for wars, violence etc. the use of force to maintain freedom for the world, for the highest values of human civilisation, the salvation of humanity from a terrible fate, etc. the old command rings out once again after many ages for those who must fight or support that battle for the right: mayaivaite nihatahpun’ameva nimittamatram bhava savyasacin. [By Me and none other already even are they slain, do thou become the occasion only, O Savyasachin. Gita, 11.33]
1 Who are the people who have such a tenderness for Hitler and object to his being compared to Duryodhana? I hope they are not among those (spiritual people among them, I am told) who believe – or perhaps once believed? – Hitler to be the new Avatar and his religion (God help us!) to be the true religion which we must help to establish throughout the wide world? Or among those who regard Hitler as a great and good man, a saint, an ascetic and all that is noble and god-like?