Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
Vested interests have taken advantage of human ignorance and have penetrated deeply into every arena of society: social, economic, psychic and spiritual. They want to suck dry the entire vitality of humanity. Vested interests do not want the ignorant to see the light of wisdom or the downtrodden to climb up the social ladder; they do not want the hungry to eat proper meals or the superstitious to be freed from their dogmatic beliefs; and they do not want the human race to gain spiritual knowledge and a thorough understanding of science, and thus get the opportunity to progress towards the realm of effulgence.
In order to remove the imaginary line of demarcation between the educated and the uneducated – to eradicate this irrational distinction – the value of human beings must be recognized. Mundane knowledge and spiritual knowledge must be as free as light and air; and like the unhindered flow of a fountain, they must keep society in a dynamic state and be a continuous source of inspiration to one and all.
As regards learning versus ignorance, vested interests intentionally try to perpetuate ignorance among the exploited masses because this provides them with a good excuse to deny the value of human beings. In the economic field, such a hypocritical stand is even more conspicuous and much more despicable. When university graduates make use of their degrees to earn their livelihood, they tend to forget that physically-strong but illiterate people are making a similar use of such assets as they have, that is, their capacity for manual labour. These educated people deprive so-called illiterates of their rights, human dignity and self-respect, and thereby develop a sense of superiority. Similarly, the rich, who inherit huge ancestral properties, accumulate vast amounts of wealth by deceiving others or amass great fortunes whether they invest capital or not, forget that, just like light, air and water, all the mundane resources of the universe are the common property of everyone, and that no property is the personal or paternal property of anyone.
All natural resources are meant to be used for collective welfare. No one has a monopoly over these resources. Some people argue, “When others by their manual labour earn money to provide themselves with food and clothing, why should I not be considered a member of the toiling masses when I earn by my intellectual labour?” In reply I will only say that by dint of intellect you may acquire as much of the boundless wealth in the intellectual or psychic realms as you like. Nobody can object to this. But if the intellect is used to appropriate limited mundane resources such as houses, land, food, clothing, money, etc., will this not deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their basic necessities? You may certainly earn your living by using your intellect, but your salary should be commensurate with the needs of your family, plus sufficient extra to take care of future contingencies, and not a penny more.
It must always be remembered that the value of money lies in its proper use. If more money is accumulated than necessary, it loses its value due to lack of use. To the extent that you keep money idle and valueless, you become responsible for the injustices done to ragged, hungry people. You will have to give value to your accumulated money by utilizing it to provide opportunities for others. So in my opinion, those who do not know how to make good use of money, which is a medium of exchange for mundane resources, are enemies of society. In them the feeling of collective movement, the real spirit of society, is conspicuously absent. They cannot establish human rights by shouting high-sounding slogans.
The sense of human value must be reflected in every action, great or small. And one of the motives, if not the only motive, behind such actions must be the acceptance of humanism in the socio-economic sphere.
Any society which accepts inequality, which wants to perpetuate that inequality by spreading false logic, is not a society worthy of the name. The standard-bearers of such false logic masquerade in the garb of righteousness and try to convince the downtrodden members of society that their economic deprivations – their humiliations, their scarcity of food, clothing and medicine, their exposure to the extremes of heat and cold – are decreed by fate, as inevitable reactions to their past actions.
Some time ago I heard a millionaire speak at a meeting. He was arguing that in modern society the karmaváda [doctrine of action and reaction of the Giitá] should be more widely propagated, because he thought that if people could understand this doctrine of action properly, the countless shrivelled-up human beings languishing in the dustbins of society would no longer blame the capitalists for their miserable condition. They would accept their misfortune with equanimity. Just imagine what a dangerous idea this is! What a wonderful capitalistic argument! Perhaps some academic stooge on the payroll of these self-seeking capitalists may even try to concoct a philosophy to support this proposition. God save humanity from such perverted philosophies!
Peopleʼs physical longings are not satisfied until they come in contact with a truly great ideology. Till then, peopleʼs wolf-like hunger is insatiable, as if they are incessantly repeating, “I am hungry, I am hungry.” Their jaws are always open, and the foolish people of this world resign themselves to their own fatalistic beliefs and fall into them. The ferocious wolf-pack devours their flesh and blood and casts away the unpalatable bones. Should we support this wolfish philosophy? The day-labourers, porters and gate-keepers around us who wear dirty rags and have fatigue etched on their faces are not considered human by those who are rolling in luxury.
It is a characteristic of vested interests that they never bother to think of anyone except themselves. They must eat and the rest of humanity only exists to be eaten. They want increasingly more objects for their gratification. Those who earn three thousand rupees a month think that this is an extremely meagre amount, but they never stop to consider the needs of those who earn a negligible thirty rupees a month [the monthly salary of a primary-school teacher or lower-division clerk in the late 1950s and early 1960s]. A poor man has to pay his rent, maintain his family, educate his children, buy milk for his babies, and save something to put towards the cost of his daughterʼs marriage, all out of thirty rupees. Are these needs only applicable to the upper stratum of society? Are they not the minimum necessities of life? Rich people do not want to consider the needs of the poor, because if they do they will have to make some sacrifices. Where will their luxuries and comforts come from if hunger does not burn the bellies of the poor? Is it not a fine idea if the daughters of the poor go on collecting cow dung forever, and their sons work like slaves in the houses of the rich for generations together? Is this not a fine arrangement? As for the high hopes of the poor, arenʼt they ridiculous? Arenʼt they out of touch with reality?
No two things in this world are identical, so I am not suggesting that everything should be recast in the same mould. However, for the sake of humanism, for the sake of social justice, equitable distribution of all the wealth of the universe is indispensable, and co-ownership of the worldʼs resources is the birthright of every individual. Even the slightest attempt to deprive anyone of this right amounts to gross selfishness. As long as certain difficulties, both great and small, exist in the practical world, however, it will not be possible to grant perfectly equal opportunities to everybody in all instances. Apart from this, all people should be granted equal rights and opportunities, except where it is necessary to inspire some people to undertake activities which will directly benefit society, or as a temporary reward for their distinguished contribution to society. In addition, every individual must have equal rights concerning things such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical care, which are absolutely essential for existence.
Some people argue, “The sufferings that people experience today due to lack of food and clothing are the results of misdeeds in their previous lives. Therefore we have no social responsibility for their suffering.” But I argue that on the contrary, if people do have to undergo torments in proportion to their original bad actions, then they may undergo their suffering in a different way in the psychic realm. Without being deprived of food and clothing or being impoverished due to social disparity, people can just as easily atone for their past misdeeds through psychic suffering. Their psychic suffering, however, cannot necessarily be removed by bringing about social justice.
In countries where people have no difficulty arranging food, clothing or medical care, they have and will continue to have psychic clash. In such countries people have to endure the pain of humiliation. They cry at the deaths of their relatives and groan in agony due to excruciating ailments. While these sufferings are beyond the scope of social justice, the problem of individual or collective suffering due to lack of physical requirements can be easily solved by implementing a system of social justice and social equality. So it is useless to blame the past misdeeds or fate of others. Actually, blaming peopleʼs suffering on their past misdeeds is merely an argument used by vested interests to justify their position, because to admit that these sufferings are the result of social injustices implies that everyone is responsible.
A little while ago I said that, because of certain difficulties, both great and small, it may not be possible to ensure the perfectly equal distribution of mundane resources, but what prevents us from at least working in this direction? What is the harm in reducing the gap between wages of thirty rupees and three thousand rupees per month? Of course this will certainly curtail the luxuries and comforts of those who earn three thousand rupees a month, but with that money quite a number of people will have the opportunity to live as human beings. This is where vested interests will perhaps object; this is where they may feel inconvenienced. But why? Is it not proper to provide every individual with the minimum wage necessary to maintain his or her family, plus twenty or twenty-five rupees extra to reward his or her efficiency and sense of duty? This is the way justice can be applied in relation to peopleʼs competence and sense of responsibility.
Human beings are not yet looking towards the actual maladies that afflict society. Various occupational groups have formed societies and associations based solely on a sense of individual or group interest. Consequently they try to solve every social problem only from the perspective of their own interests. They do not want to help solve the problems of the lower echelons of society. Not even one per cent of the energy that is spent to pull people down from the top of society is utilized to elevate those at the bottom. This is the greatest tragedy.
Human Society Part 1, Ananda Marga Publications (1959).