THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS ONE WORLD

K. SUBBA RAO

Former Chief Justice of India

World, in the context, means the world as a geophysical unit and also the people in the world. Though physically it is one unit, the people divided it into many sub-units and called them nations. The compound word “one-world” therefore means the reunion of the nations into one unit and the recognition that all the people, the occupants of the world, are one. Indeed the emphasis in the said concept is more on the unity of the people than on the oneness of the physical world, as it is factually one. Oneness does not necessarily mean a unitary State. The expression takes in unitary State, federation, confederation and other variations of the said concepts. It may even comprehend, as a necessary step towards a closer union, any relationship under bilateral or multilateral conventions or agreements.

Nature has provided the following basic conditions among unity of the world:

World is a geophysical unit. Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Astro-physics and allied sciences establish that it is a separate entity and a speck in the vast expanse of the universe. The scientific and technological revolution of the recent years, in the fields of transport and communication, has figuratively shrunk the world and brought with it the realisation of its relative dimunition.

Man is psycho-physical organism. Biology, Genetics, Anthropology, Psychology, Psycho-analysis and such other sciences demonstrate the uniqueness of man’s distinctive personality.

The recent researches in what is called ‘reincarnationist psychology’, a western version of the Hindu Karmic theory, disclose that the people now living in one part of the world might have had their previous birth or births in different parts of the world, This doctrine cuts across race, colour and sex.

Man is a cultural entity. Sociology, linguistics, language, literature, customs and conventions prove that man has a common origin with physical, intellectual and spiritual faculties. The literature and other expressions of thought of men in different parts of the world may differ in depth and width, but by and large they deal with the same subjects.

Man is a social animal. By instinct and intuition he moves towards unity. History records the direction of the movement through different stages of social environment–family, tribe, state, nation and world. The destination and direction are clear, though there were ups and downs, and though sometimes there was a temporary retracing of the steps only to go forward again. The great seer Sri Aurobindo has described this inexorable forward direction thus: “Nature moves forward always, in the midst of all tumblings and secures her aims in the end, more often in spite of man’s imperfect mentality than its means.”

But the progress has been slow, though in some periods it has gained unexpected and unforeseen momentum. Nature made amends as it were for its apparent neglect. There is this compulsory , direction of nature towards unity.

But parochialism, nationalism, power politics, religious and racial differences, economic inequalities, conflicting ideologies, unwillingness of the States to give up even a little of their sovereignty to international organs are some of the obstacles to progress towards world union.

Notwithstanding such obstacles, in the wake of the termination of the First World War, an international clearing house, in the shape of the League of Nations, with its concomitant judicial and executive institutions was established, but because of the recalcitrant attitude of some of its influential members, it ended in a failure. After the Second World War with a stronger determination to make it a success, engendered by the compelling needs of the holocaust of war, the United Nations came into being. It was organised under the United Nations Charter. The three-fold purpose of the United Nations Charter was to maintain peace in the world, to preserve, protect and promote human rights and to help the social and economic development of the backward Countries. The Charter created a number of institutions–the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General, the International Court of Justice. In addition the United Nations created other institutions–The Economic and Social Council, The Trusteeship Council, the Commission on Human Rights, etc. The purpose of the Economic and Social Council is to implement the recommendations of the Assembly on Economic, Social and other humanitarian questions and also to submit recommendations on its own initiative. It is also empowered to enter into agreement with the specialised agencies of the United Nations. In its turn it set up a number of functional commissions. The important ones are 1. Economic Commission for Europe 2. Economic Commission for Asia and Far East 3. International Commodity Trade Market and 4. International Labour Organisation. The Commission on Human Rights prepared a draft of the universal declaration of the Human Rights on December 10, 1948. The United Nations adopted the same as a common standard of achievement for all the people and for all the nations. After 20 years of wrangling between the two power blocks the Commission produced two international covenants on Human Rights–one for civil and political rights and the other for social and economic rights. Even these covenants have not evolved any effective machinery for enforcing the said rights.

Broadly stated the United Nations General Assembly corresponds to the Legislature, the Security Council to the Executive, the Department of the Secretary-General to the Secretariat and the International Council of Justice to the Judiciary of a national State. The approximation is only in name and not in substance, though the potentiality for evolution is there. In practice the General Assembly operates by and large as a debating society. Every nation big or small, rich or poor can have its say. Sometimes the deliberations are embarrassing to the great powers. It helps not only to air their differences, not only to focus on the great injustices of the world, but also to create international public opinion. The Security Council has become a divided house. The exercise of the veto by the great powers reduced it to the position that, if great powers agreed, it could interfere to restore peace, If they differed, it could not move in the matter. So the exercise of veto power shifted the responsibility to the great powers to maintain peace throughout the world. This has replaced objective appraisal by power politics. The recent induction of Communist China into United Nations has now introduced a new dimension to the conflict of great powers. Even so, the Security Council prevented millions of wars and restored peace in Korea, Congo, Greece, etc.

But in economic and social sphere, it has done very good work. The United Nations agencies have been helping the developing and backward nations considerably in the field of economic growth, social regeneration and health amelioration. To say all these is not to deny or decry the work of the United Nations. It has great potentialities. It may in fullness of time evolve into a world Government. But the time is not ripe to such an eventuality. I shudder to think of a World Government at present; one can imagine such a Government being headed by perverted personalities like Hitler or Stalin or such others. With the aid of the modern science and technology he may condition the mind of the people and make the world a great prison. One-world, at present, may turn out to be one prison.

A long and sustained preparation is a necessary condition for a World Government. During that period, a concerted attempt shall be made to change the quality of man. Man shall acquire the perspective of a world citizen. This can be achieved by the acceptance and inculcation of three concepts–1. Universality of Science; 2. Universality of Religion and 3. Universality of Freedoms.

The over-emphasis on materialism has already created in developed countries not only a permissive society, but also ecological problems. With co-operation and sense of humanism, there is a reasonable prospect of science and technology overtaking the backward and developing countries and helping them towards the pursuit of scientific materialism. Though this development is necessary for raising the material standards of the world population, unless it is tempered by spiritualism, there is a danger of lopsided development. Scientific materialism satisfied human desires. The satisfaction of human desires creates further desires which in their turn demand further satisfaction. This is a never-ending process which ultimately leads to discontent and demoralization. So, though the concept of universality of science is a meritorious and much desirable one, it shall be tempered by spiritualism.

The second concept is the universality of the religion. Universality of religion does not mean one universal religion. It means not only tolerance of religious diversity but mutual respect to each others religion. This attitude towards religion in the Indian context may be described in popular parlance as “secularism.” Religion is a faith in God or some divine principle governing universe. It is a faith in reality experienced by great prophets and disclosed in different scriptures. A study of the different scriptures will indicate that the fundamental principles of all religions are the same or similar and that they differ only in ritualistic garbs in which they are clothed or the practices they follow, having regard to the environmental conditions in which they function. Briefly stated all religions believe in God or some universal principle; all religions believe in salvation, which is given different names, such as heaven, Mukti, Nirvana, etc., all religions lay down the pathway or Sadhana to achieve salvation; all religions prescribe rules of ethical conduct to purify the mind in order to pursue the pathway laid down; all religions place before their votaries high values of life. All religions therefore emphasise on the self-realisation of man through various connected disciplines. But unfortunately fanaticism, obscurantism, ignorance and politicalization of religion are separating the religions, and creating conflicts between them. All the religious leaders should realise their common enemy is atheism engendered by materialistic philosophy. United they will survive divided they will succumb. It is therefore high time for all religious leaders to make a concerted attempt to rationalise their respective religions and maintain a continuous dialogue among themselves to ward off the common danger. This must be done at various levels–home, school, college, religious conferences and media of public opinion. At all these focus points, a sincere and sustained attempt shall be made to inculcate the principles of various religions with an emphasis on the fundamental unity underlying all the religions and on the concept of the tolerance of religious diversity. Secularism, in my view, really means the spirit of tolerance or cosmopolitanism; it means spiritualism, neither fanaticism, nor atheism; it means that every man has the freedom of conscience–personal and corporate; it means not only tolerance of religious diversity but mutual respect. This doctrine if seriously implemented, will not only change the quality of life but will spiritualise the material activities; it affords a moral background to man in his pursuit of worldly affairs.

There cannot be one world if several grades of freedom prevail in different parts of the world ranging from near slavery to absolute freedom. It is therefore necessary that freedom should be secured to the citizens of every State before one could think of a one-world or one World Government. Broadly stated, the expression freedom means freedom for every individual to live like a human being.

Freedom’s are described as human rights. They are not the rights of a rich man but the rights of a man wherever he lives. It is the right of a man to live, to dream and to develop his personality physically, intellectually and spirituality. As freedom is the right of all people, the concept of equality is implicit in it. If all people are free, all are equally free. The laws of social control are nothing more than maintaining the balance between the freedoms of different people. To put it in other words, they reconcile the two doctrines, liberty and equality. All should equally enjoy the freedoms. Universality of freedom, therefore, may be defined as the right of man, irrespective of his race, religion, language, habitation, etc., to life, liberty, equality, property, justice and generally to human happiness.

Different jurists categorise the said freedoms in different terminology, though their effect is the same–political, social and economic; physical, intellectual and spiritual; liberty, equality and security; fundamental rights and directive principles; rights and duties; means and ends; fundamental freedoms. Howsoever they are described, whatever different terminology may have been used, they convey the idea that a man is a unit of value and not a slave of the State and that the State exists for the man and not the man for the State.

The realisation of the universal value of this concept is the justification for its incorporation in the United Nations Charter, International Declaration of Human Rights, international covenants and in almost all the written constitutions of the democratic world. Indeed the said rights find a place in the Communist Constitution and even in the Russian Constitution proclaimed during the Stalin purges.

But the reasons for their non-implementation or ineffective implementation are briefly as follows:

1. There is no effective machinery for enforcing the said rights declared in the United Nations international convenants and in many national constitutions. Though some constitutions have provided for an effective machinery for their preservation and enforcement, the men who came into power either diluted the machinery by amendment or evolved unhealthy conventions.

2. There is inherent conflict in the human mind itself between power and freedom. Man craves for freedom for himself and seeks to curb it in others.

3. There is conflict of ideologies.

The democratic States preserve and enforce the classical rights and create conditions for the securing of economic, social and cultural rights to their citizens through democracy and rule of law. The Communist countries show lip sympathy to the classical rights but seek to enforce economic rights through coercion.

4. The oppressor represents the oppressed. Many States, through their representatives in the international organisations, fight for the preservation of the freedoms of the people in other countries and cynically suppress them in their States.

5. The unwillingness of the sovereign States, both democratic as well as totalitarian, to give up a little of their sovereignty to the international bodies in order to preserve and protect such freedoms.

Because of these and such other reasons, the talk of freedoms has become only a platitudinous slogan. Except in a few highly developed democracies in other countries, both under democratic and totalitarian forms of Government, fundamental freedoms or human rights do not exist and even if they exist in law, they are largely suppressed in fact. Unless therefore the concept of freedom is effectively implemented in all the States, one world will continue to be an idle talk and a distant mirage. Briefly stated, the remedies for making the concept of freedom a reality are as follows:

1. The International law of Human Rights shall be binding on all the States, that is to say, they shall be binding on municipal courts of all the States, whether the municipal law recognises the freedoms or even negatives them.

2. All the classical rights, i.e., Civil and Political rights, should be declared positive rights by the law of each State and made enforceable through an impartial judicial machinery.

3. A duty should be cast on every State to evolve economic rights through economic development through rule of law.

4. The higher judiciary of the land should be entrusted with the power to resolve the conflict between different categories of sights and harmonise them. The process of evolution is through judicial adjustment.

5. A regional court or courts should be established separately by democratic and totalitarian blocs. An appeal from the State Court may lie to the Regional Court on a certificate issued by the effect the appeal involves an important question of infringement of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the covenants approved by the United Nations. Both the individual aggrieved and a State can prefer an appeal.

6. An International Court of Human Rights may be established with compulsory jurisdiction over an the constituent States. An appeal may lie from a Regional Court to the said Court at the instance of an aggrieved party or a State on a certificate granted by the said Court or by a special leave given by it. Where there is no Regional Court and where there is also no State Court to enforce the basic rights of the citizens, an original petition may lie to the International Court of Human Rights at the instance of an aggrieved party or a State. Where there is a State Court but no Regional Court, an appeal may lie from the State Court to the International Court on a certificate issued by the State Court or special leave granted by the International Court.

7. A Commissioner for Human Rights should be appointed at the State, regional and international levels.

8. At the regional level and the international level there should be regional and international commissions of human rights to help, create economic basis in different States to enable them to enforce economic and social rights.

“Universality of freedom” may be defined as the enforceable international legal right of man, irrespective of race, nationality, religion, language, habitation, etc., to life, liberty, property, equality, justice and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe that by harmonising the said three concepts, viz., universality of science, religion and freedom and by implementing them, we can accelerate the pace of the movement towards one World Government. It is no doubt a distant vision and its contours are not yet clear and at present even hazy. Still one thing is clear, that the society is moving towards it. I hope and trust that the men, who occupy the seats of power in different parts of the world, will do their best in this regard. But the more important is, that the intelligentsia must create public opinion, national and international, for the evolution of the aforesaid three concepts through implementation. The creation of a universal man is the only way to accelerate the pace towards ‘one-world.’

Back