THREE CARDINAL SOCIO-POLITICAL PRINCIPLES

THREE CARDINAL SOCIO-POLITICAL PRINCIPLES[corrected from another source]

Shrii Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar

14 November 1988, Calcutta, INDIA

[here too the AM publication as well electronic edition, has not edited properly because of their narrow mindedness or who knows what's their motto....you all guess and don't get freaked by this notion of pointing mistakes...]

For the all-round welfare and development of human beings, society needs to be established on some fundamental socio-political principles.

Without the firm foundation of such principles, disunity, injustice and exploitation will flourish.

To avoid this occurring and to safeguard the interests of all people, the leaders of society must be vigilant so that cardinal socio-political principles are strictly followed, otherwise, individual and collective progress can never be achieved.

There are three cardinal socio-political principles which should not be violated.
The first is that you should not make people jobless without arranging alternative employment for them.
Secondly, you should not forcibly convert people from one religion to another.
Thirdly, you should not suppress people’s mother tongue.

These three aspects of life are very important to human beings.

If the sentiments associated with them are hurt, it affects human beings deeply, so, you should never violate these cardinal socio-political principles.

There are many instances where these three cardinal principles have been violated, causing much suffering and disturbance in individual and collective life.

Let us discuss what happens when people’s livelihood is suppressed.

Take the example of rickshaw pullers. The work done by rickshaw pullers is exhausting and poorly paid, but if it is declared illegal, many rickshaw pullers will become jobless and their condition will become more miserable.

Those who cannot find alternative employment will either die of starvation or resort to anti-social activities to maintain their existence and that of their families.

These would be very detrimental to society.

So, before this occupation is banned, those working in it should be found suitable alternative employment.

Take another example. In the Pathan period and at the height of the Mughal period, zamindars or landlords were permitted to maintain military forces, but this practice was banned at the end of the Mughal period and the start of the British period.

As a result, many soldiers from military communities like the Bagadis of Ráŕh, the Cuyáras of Midnapur and the Lodhas of Purulia were forced out of the armed services. Consequently, they became dacoits.

Even 30 to 40 years ago, members of these communities were still engaged in antisocial activities, but now this practice has virtually ceased.

If these people had been taken into the military or the police forces, they would have earned a proper livelihood and they would not have been compelled to harm the society.

Their fate would have been very different.

Finally, take a third example. In India during the time of the British, many small kingdoms were ruled by rajas and maharajas.

When India became independent, these kingdoms merged into India, and the Indian government decided to pay the former monarchs a pension.

However, this pension scheme was not a good idea, because many Maharajas wasted money and lived luxurious lives as parasites.

After a particular leader became prime minister, the pension scheme was abandoned at short notice, causing economic difficulties for kalachand’s temple to be destroyed, he prepared to his stone, some of the less wealthy recipients who were unable to make alternative financial arrangements.

Some old people in particular found it difficult to adjust. While the government should not have adopted the pension scheme in the first place, having adopted it, the government should have withdrawn it gradually and taken the responsibility for looking after the old pensioners on humanitarian grounds.

Now you understand the consequences of making people jobless without arranging some alternative livelihood for them.

The second principle, which should not be violated, is that you should not forcibly convert someone from one religion to another.

If a religion is able to give people proper guidance on the path of Dharma, they will not leave it.

However, if a religion is weak or contains some defective teachings, such as supporting the caste system or oppressing poor people, then people will easily become disenchanted with it.

People from other religions will take advantage of these weaknesses and forcibly convert them.

In the past, there were many instances where large numbers of Hindus were converted to another religion by compelling them to transgress their religious teachings.

For example, Hindus were forcibly fed onions or beef and Hindu women were abducted.

Consequently they were declared as outcastes by other members of the Hindu community.

When those who had instigated the Hindus to transgress their religious teachings observed this response, they were encouraged to escalate their campaign of forcible conversion.

There is a well-known story about a Zamindar from Bengal known as Kalachand Roy, later Kalapahar, who was a follower of Kálii.

He worshipped a stone image of Kálii with great devotion. At that time, some invaders belonging to another religion were conducting a campaign to destroy all Hindu temples and deities.

When the time came for Kalachand’s temple to be destroyed, he prayed to his stone deity(Kálii) saying, “See Mother, I don’t have power to protect you, so please protect yourself.”

But how can a stone idol protect itself?

In due course, his temple and the idol were destroyed.

Kalachand lost faith in Kálii as she could save herself, and he was converted to the religion of the invaders.

He became to known as Sheik Khan and he launched his own campaign throughout Bengal and Orissa to forcibly convert people to his new religion by terror and violence. He disfigured deities, destroyed temples and threatened people with physical harm to convert them to his new religion.

Once he travelled to Kashi and by accident set about  converting a widow who also happened to be his elder sister. However, she refused to succumb to his threats, and scolded him for his bad behaviour.

This made him realize his folly and he abandoned his campaign.

If Hindu religion had not believed in idol worship, then Kalachand would not have been converted.

Moreover, due to his forcible conversion, Kalachand became very hostile towards Hinduism and launched a  campaign of terror against it.

So, a religion should be established on such a strong foundation that no one can be converted from it.

There is another interesting incident about a mas conversion from 600 years ago which also illustrates the defects in the Hindu religion.

In Jessore Khulna, which was included in Tripura at the time, there were Hindus and not a single Muslim. A muslim Kazi or teacher called Pir Ali Khan wanted to establish Islam in this area, but he knew the Hindus would not be easily converted, so he adopted a very devious strategy.

In those days there were good relations between the Hindus and the Muslims, and it was a common practice for each community to invite members of the other community to collective feasts.

When the muslims invited the Hindus the food was prepared according to the proper customs by some Brahmin priests. So when the Hindus from jessore Khulna went to the feast organized by Pir Ali khan, they expected that the food would be properly prepared by a Hindu Brahmin.

However, Pir Ali khan arranged for onion and beef to be put into the food, knowing that these were forbidden to Hindus.

After his guests had taken their meal, he informed the Pandits or priests of the Brahmin community, about their transgression, and as a consequence the Hindus who attended the feast were declared outcastes.

Pir Ali khan then demanded that all those who had smelled the breath of the people who had attended the feast as they were returning home should also be declared outcastes, but the Pandits did not agree.

So Pir Ali khan pointed out that one of the tenets of the Hindu religion was that smelling the fragrance of food is equivalent to eating it, thus the Pandits were forced to agree with Pir Ali khan. All those who had smelled the fragrance of the eaten food were declared a degenerated community(Patit), and became known as Pirali Kayasta and Pirali Brahmims.

As a result of this incident, there was a huge conversion of Hindus to Islam.

Pir Ali khan was also responsible for another mass conversion by adopting a similar strategy.

While travelling in the same region near a place called Chandpur he came across a cholera epidemic which had killed nearly all the population. He found a small boy who was the lone survivor  amongst his family.

Pir Ali khan took care of him, and after some time they went to a Hindu village where Pir Ali khan asked the people to look after the boy.

One family agreed. Several years later Pir Ali khan returned to the same village and inquired about the boy and the family who had taken him in.

Pir Ali khan then revealed that the boy had previously lived in his home, taking food and water there, therefore according to the Hindu religion the boy was a muslim and not a hindu.

The village pandit agreed and declared the family who had adopted the boy as outcastes.

But the matter did not stop there.

Pir Ali khan demanded that all those who were related to the family, who had in some way come in contact with them, or who had taken food, water or shelter from them on any occasion since the boys arrival should also be declared outcastes. This led to a huge conversion from Hinduism to Islam.

Nearly 50,000 people were declared outcastes due to this one simple incident, and they became known as Maifara’s muslims.

As a result of these kinds of incidents, the pundits (priests) in eastern India began to realize that soon all the Brahmins would be converted to Islam.

One Pandit/priest called Devi Bar Ghatak from Mallálpur in the Birbhum district of Bengal, formulated a theory in which he prescribed that there was no need to declare people outcastes.

He argued that those who had been forced into the same transgression should be declared a special community within the Hindu religion.

For example, all those families from which a girl had been abducted were declared one community, and all those who had been forced to take onions or beef became another community.

The members of these communities could marry among themselves and engage in normal social relationships. This system was called the Melbandhan system, and it saved the Brahmin community of Bengal from conversion to Islam.

Although the Kayastha community of Bengal did not accept the Melbandhan, they accepted its inner spirit, and there after they did not declare any of their members as outcastes.

A similar system was followed in Bihar. Members of the Brahmin community who were converted to Islam formed a group and took the title Syed.

The Kayasthas took the title Mallik, the Rajputs became Mián Mussalmen or Pathan Mussalmen, and the Bhuminars became Sheik Mussalmen.

As long as the caste system and idol worship exist in Hinduism, Hindu society will degenerate and there will be conversions to other religions.

If Hinduism continues to degenerate, the progress of India as a whole will be retarded because Hindus are the majority community in India.

Moreover, if there are continued conversions to Islam, women will become second grade citizens, as they are not given equal status with men in this religion, consequently there will be further degeneration.

Thus, nobody should be forcibly converted from one religion to another.

Religions should be established on a strong foundation of logic and reason, then such things will not occur.

If people are forced to transgress/violate the teachings of their religion, they should not be declared as outcastes. Even if they knowingly violate some religious code without any compulsion, there should be ample scope for them to rectify their behaviour.

A religion is not like a glass tumbler which breaks with a light tap.

In the future you should be careful not to hurt the religious sentiments of others, even if most people become Ánanda Márgiis.

Deities should be preserved in museums, and temples should be restored to maintain the cultural and historical heritage of a country.

The third thing is that you should suppress people’s mother tongue.
If people’s mother tongue is suppressed, the consequences are most dangerous.

Take the example of Pakistan. Mohammed Jinnah and the then Prime Minister of Pakistan declared Urdu as the national language of Pakishtan.

But the actual language position of undivided Pakistan – at that time was 60% of the population spoke Bengali and 40% spoke Hindi, Baluchi, Punjabi or Urdu.

When Urdu was declared the national language, East Pakistan revolted and this led to the division of Pakistan. There was a famous song at the time:

Orá ámáder mukher bháśá keŕe nete cáy…

[They are intent on snatching away the language of our mouth…]

This song aroused the sentiments of the people, and the whole country became united around the issue of their mother tongue.

In India, Hindi has been imposed on non-Hindi speaking people, resulting in much ill-feeling between many states and the centre.

Those whose mother is not Hindi feel suppressed. This is Hindi imperialism.

For example, the important languages of Bihar like Bhojpuri, Maethilii, and Nagpuri are suppressed in favour of Hindi.

The people of Bihar do not even know the pronunciation of Hindi because they speak according to their own intonation.

Other example of language suppression are French in Canada, Basque in Spain and Sicilian in Sicily.

Several decades ago, Hitler planned to capture France and teach everyone German, thereby eliminating French. If he had done this, regardless of what else that he did, the people would have revolted.

The psychology of suppression hampers the proper progress of a country.

A day will come when the people will revolt against this imposition, and the unity of the country will be undermined.

People’s sentiments cannot be forcibly suppressed for a long time.

Human beings best express themselves through their mother tongue, so to suppress people’s mother tongue is equivalent to strangulating them.

Is not the suppression of people’s mother tongues a sin?

India is a multi-lingual and multi-religious country.

To declare a particular language or a particular religion as the state religion will be very detrimental to the overall welfare of the country.

Rather, all the languages spoken in India should be accepted and encouraged.

In this regard India should follow the lead of some other countries. In Switzerland, for example, four languages are recognized as the state languages – German, Italian, French and Romanch – although more than twice as many people speak German compared to the other three languages combined.

This is the correct approach as it does not go against the collective psychology of the people.

Similarly, if a particular religion is declared a state religion, those who follow other religions will not feel oneness with the country.

Consequently, the unity of the country will be weakened. If people go against this basic principle they may be successful for a short time because of political influences, but eventually they will bring great harm to the country and meet their downfall.

There are occasions when majority decisions do not create unity in society as people are more or less divided on an issue.

In such circumstances the leaders should be very cautious in making their decisions and take care to safeguard everybody’s interests.

In particular they should select a course of action which does not harm the sentiments of any group.

For example, suppose there are seven brothers in a joint family, and these brothers are divided on an issue.

Four brothers may be on one side and three brothers on another.

If the guardian takes a decision based on the wishes of the majority, the family will be divided into two groups.

Therefore, a decision should be taken which safeguards the interests of all the brothers.

If any group tries to violate any of these cardinal socio-political principles, you should immediately oppose them with a thundering voice and sufficient force.

Victory will be yours because you are supporting the collective psychology.

But before launching any movement you should make sure that the masses are conscious of their exploitation, otherwise the movement will not be successful.

Although it may take some time to raise the consciousness of the masses, ultimately you will be victorious.

Take an example. A leader of the Maethilii community in Bihar wanted to start a movement against the exploitation of the Maethilii language, so he organized a massive rally and started to lecture the people about the exploitation of Maethilii.

Initially everyone listened to him attentively and supported his ideas.

At the end of his address he told the masses: “We live for Maethilii, we die for Maethilii.”

But one person amongst the crowd shouted out: “Yes, we will live for Maethilii, but why should we die for Maethilii?

Rather I choose to die in kasha.”

According to mythology, if one dies in Kashi one goes to heaven.

Immediately all the people started to support this view, and as a result the meeting was disturbed.

This happened because the masses were not made conscious of the exploitation of their mother tongue and they followed the path of religious dogma instead.

So, you should ensure that these three cardinal socio-political principles are not violated. By doing this you will safeguard the welfare of society.