For someone who had never travelled out of his East Prussian home of Königsberg, (renamed Kaliningrad after it was ceded to the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1945), the legacy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) still inspires many on the occasion of his 300th birth anniversary this year.
Kant has unwittingly become a world citizen long after his time. Both Russia and Germany lay claim to his legacy. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Perpetual Peace, are being reassessed in light of a crisis of dysfunctionality in the multilateral order. Kant rejected imperialism, colonialism and slavery. In addition to open trade, immigration and the right to refuge, he also supported the idea of a “world citizen” who could travel freely. He believed in reason, rationality and morality guiding political action.
Kant’s rationality and ethics continue to remain relevant. Colonialism and imperialism may be deemed a closed chapter in history but the UN website still lists 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories as the unfinished agenda of the Special Committee on Decolonisation. Chapter XI of the UN Charter defines the Non-Self-Governing Territories as “territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”. UN General Assembly resolution 66(I) of December 14, 1946, noted a list of 72 territories to which Chapter XI of the Charter applied. Over the decades, many have undergone a change in status. Alaska and Hawaii became part of the US, Greenland of Denmark, Reunion a part of France, and some gained independence but remained in “free association” with erstwhile “administering powers”. These powers, many of whom, ironically, claim to be champions of democracy, seem loath to give freedom to the 17 Non Self-Governing Territories.
Kant could not have anticipated our world when he spoke of “perpetual peace”. He could not have foreseen a multilateral institution like the UN in which the permanent members stubbornly perpetuate their privileged status. Kant could not have foreseen an era in which global terrorist organisations, quasi-state entities, multinational corporations, big tech, NGO/activist groups and individuals like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg would have agency across borders. He could not have imagined the ominous threat of weapons of mass destruction or a world in which AI and lethal autonomous weapons redefine battlefields. Kant, were he alive, would have had to countenance fake news, hatred and notions of superiority based on race, religion or political ideology. He would no doubt have considered them to be a canker on objective reality, ethics and morality.
Kant’s ideas have abiding resonance in a world full of strife in which the war of narratives blurs the distinction between reality and fiction. Today, reality is often a creation of geopolitical and geo-economic interests. The yardstick for appraising democratic backsliding is beset with double standards. How else can one explain the crackdown on the ongoing campus demonstrations across the US while calling for “freedom of expression” in India?
In an age that often demands digital conformity, individual perceptions are swayed by transnational constituencies that challenge conventional notions of national identity and authority. As AI Compute develops new frontiers of sensory perception, the definition of reality is bound to change further.
Rationality is the quality of being guided by reason and logic. However, reason and logic are also shaped by history, collective civilisational and cultural experiences, nationalism, religious beliefs, clan and class loyalties. These impact rationality in such a manner that it gives way to rationale, bereft of values or morality.
It is an insidious rationale that characterised the depredations of colonialism. It also explains contemporary challenges of terrorism and aggression by nations. In contrast, ethics are linked to moral principles that govern individual behaviour, with basic unquestionable values.
The UN Charter was expected to provide a common ethical bedrock for international relations. But it is dysfunctional today due to major power rivalry driven by expedient rationale, not rationality. It is neither ethics nor rationality but a self-serving rationale that is behind the permanent members of the UN Security Council arrogating to themselves a veto power in perpetuity. It is not surprising then that the “Rule of Law” touted by the West as a cachet for the global order is viewed with suspicion by the less privileged.
In recent years, India has rediscovered the relevance of its indigenous strategic culture. The great Indian epics — Ramayana and Mahabharata — judge statecraft, war and diplomacy through the prism of ethics. Long before Kant, Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Thiruvalluvar’s Tirukkural dwelt on ethics and morality. The Indian ethos of serving humanity is based on its ancient cultural heritage. During its G20 Presidency, India built consensus on the basis of the motto, One Earth, One Family, One Future, inspired by the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
Now is an important juncture in international affairs to amalgamate Kant’s ideas with the teachings of our ancients, to provide a new moral compass for a better world.
The writer is director general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Views are personal
