Patriotism is willing to die for foolish reasons.

“The problem of Africa is, of course, a part of the wider problems of Imperialism, but it is that part in which the application of Socialist principles is most difficult. In regard to Asia, and more particularly in regard to India and Persia, the application of principles is clear in theory though difficult in political practice. The obstacles to self-government which exist in Africa do not exist in the same measure in Asia. What stands in the way of freedom of Asiatic populations is not their lack of intelligence, but only their lack of military prowess, which makes them an easy prey to our lust for dominion. This lust would probably be in temporary abeyance on the morrow of a Socialist revolution, and at such a moment a new departure in Asiatic policy might be taken with permanently beneficial results. I do not mean, of course, that we should force upon India that form of democratic government which we have developed for our own needs. I mean rather that we should leave India to choose its own form of government, its own manner of education and its own type of civilization. India has an ancient tradition, very different from that of Western Europe, a tradition highly valued by educated Hindoos, but not loved by our schools and colleges. The Hindoo Nationalist feels that his country has a type of culture containing elements of value that are absent, or much less marked, in the West; he wishes to be free to preserve this, and desires political freedom for such reasons rather than for those that would most naturally appeal to an Englishman in the same subject position. The belief of the European in his own Kultur tends to be fanatical and ruthless, and for this reason, as much as for any other, the independence of extra-European civilization is of real importance to the world, for it is not by a dead uniformity that the world as a whole is most enriched.”-The Proposed Roads To Freedom, Chapter 6th, International Relations, Bertrand Russel

This passage from Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918) is a remarkable testament to Bertrand Russell’s foresight. Written at a time when the British Empire was still at its height, Russell argues for a “new departure” in policy that honors the “independence of extra-European civilization.”
The Core Argument: Pluralism vs. Uniformity
Russell’s main point is that India’s value to the world lies in its difference.
The Critique of “Kultur”: He criticizes the European belief that their specific culture is universal or superior. He warns that a “dead uniformity” would impoverish the world.
Self-Determination: He argues that India shouldn’t just be free, but free to choose its own type of civilization—one that might not look like British democracy or education.
The Obstacle: He explicitly states that India’s lack of freedom isn’t due to a “lack of intelligence,” but rather a “lack of military prowess” that leaves it vulnerable to European “lust for dominion.”

I started reading this book a few weeks ago. It analysed Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism after giving a brief introduction of Marx, Bakunin  and Kropotkin. It discusses Work and Pay in the fourth chapter. Science and Art under Socialism is discussed in chapter seventh. The concluding chapter is: The World As it Could be Made.

Title: Proposed Roads to Freedom

Author: Bertrand Russell

Release date: October 1, 1996 [eBook #690]
Most recently updated: February 9, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Charles Keller using OmniPage Professional OCR software donated by Caere Corporation

I chose this Project Gutenberg work to read because I wanted to read something from Bertrand Russel. I read a few essays on Philosophy first, then I read “The Problem Of China,” then I picked this book. When I had just begun to attend college I joined The British Library in Bhopal to improve my English Vocabulary and Comprehension. A History of Western Philosophy, which I misquoted as “The History of Western Philosophy” on many platforms, left a lasting impact on my mind. I recently discovered that Russel was awarded a Nobel Prize in literature in 1950 and that book played a great role in it. Bertrand Russel, despite being born in an aristocratic family and earning a title of third Earl found himself in impoverished circumstances and ended up in prison multiple times. He continued to read for eight hours and wrote four hours everyday for those six months. Other prison inmates used to sweep his room during that time because of his privileged background. The reason why he ended up in a prison was because his views were not harmonious with the British government of his time. In the old age he was again sent to prison just for a few days because of his activism for World Peace. He lived up to a mature age of 97.

“The above proposition is occasionally useful.”

The Two “Principias”
Isaac Newton (1687): Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). 
Russell & Whitehead (1910–1913): Principia Mathematica. 
Why the similar name?
Russell and Whitehead chose this title as a deliberate homage (and a bit of a bold statement).
Establishing Authority: Newton’s Principia is arguably the most important book in the history of science because it used mathematics to explain the physical laws of the universe (gravity, motion). 
The New Frontier: Russell and Whitehead wanted their book to do for Logic what Newton’s did for Physics. They weren’t just writing a math book; they were trying to prove that all of mathematics could be derived from pure logic. 
The “Foundations”: By calling it Principia (Principles), they were signaling that they were digging down to the very bedrock of human thought.
The Famous “1 + 1 = 2”
While Newton explained why the planets move, Russell and Whitehead spent over 360 pages just getting to the point where they could definitively prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
In the margins of that famous proof, they added a dry, witty comment:

The first quote above discusses the situation in Africa and India at the time this book was being published(1918.) It was the time when the first world war was about to end and India was still far from freedom. This gives us a unique insight into the situation from the viewpoint of a British humanitarian philosopher.