Sri Aurobindo
Autobiographical Notes
and Other Writings of Historical Interest
Part Three. On Indian and World Events 1940–1950
1. Public Statements, Messages,
Letters and Telegrams
On the Integration of the French Settlements in India
1947–1950
The Future Union (A Programme)1
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.2
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 
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 
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 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 
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 
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 
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.
(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 
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 
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 
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