**Limiting Government in Size, Scope and Power** ## Tyranny & Democide History has repeatedly shown the failures of relying on the State to provide for its citizens. The Sikh Panth in particular has suffered greatly under tyrannical regimes that may, on paper, be secular and democratic, but in reality are divisive and catered towards their own elitist desires for power and control. By pitting one group against another, the people are divided and squabble amongst themselves, and in this way the rulers maintain power. However, the counter to this may be that the people simply need to elect a “good” leader, one who will be just and compassionate. This may seem true initially, and perhaps even obvious. History has had its examples of venerated rulers, from Marcus Aurelius to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Cyrus the “Great” was so revered by the Jews that he was praised in their scripture as a messiah, the only non-Jew to be given the title. From our own Ithiaas, Raja Janak in particular is a famous example: a king who attained enlightenment and conquered desire and attachment. The ideal of “philosopher kings” espoused by Plato has indeed been realised throughout history. But they were rare, an exception rather than the rule, lasting only as oases in a vast desert of tyranny and oppression. Aurelius was the last of what Niccolò Machiavelli called the “Five Good Emperors”, as after his death the Roman Empire fell into times of great hardship and civil war, culminating in the infamous “Year of the Five Emperors”. Maharaja Ranjit Singh invested heavily in arts and culture as well as implementing many beneficial reforms. But this also ultimately fell apart due to betrayal from within his court. Dying without a clear successor led to internal strife, which was further exploited by the British to destroy his empire entirely. Even after the death of Cyrus, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, although largely prosperous, eventually produced rulers who grew up in luxury and became weaker and weaker, until Sikandar from Macedonia overran them and sent Emperor Darius into hiding in his own lands[^1]. The message here is that having a system which so heavily relies on the competence and benevolence of the ruler is inherently flawed. As soon as they go, so does the prosperity that depended upon them, and ultimately it is the people who suffer. To rely on the long-term compassion of a Government in Kaljug is not only naive, but can often be disastrous. There is no “right man for the right job” since the job itself is wrong. No one individual or small group should hold a monopoly on force by centralising power into the hands of a select few. Aiming to elect a group that will adequately represent an entire society is not only unrealistic but dangerous. No exclusive group of people are capable of managing the vast diversity of societies, the complexity of which gives rise to so many different needs and wants. To suggest that a singular entity can successfully manage the trillions of transactions that occur daily in the modern world is not only wrong but ludicrous[^2]. Even a ruler with good intentions, seeing the limited resources under their control, may try to prioritise by pandering to one group, but in the process excludes another. Ways in which this has been dealt with have often resulted in tragic consequences for populations. In order to maintain supreme control, ruling classes have engaged in heinous acts by first “simplifying” the systems they control. By eradicating diversity and freedom of expression, they aim to establish a population that is homogeneous. A population that thinks and acts the same is far easier to manage, and for any tyrant this becomes a more desirable route after realising how complex managing a State really is. They have no shame in manipulating the truth and applying labels such as _“enemies of the State”_ to weed out opposition. By monopolising and nationalising media, they control the narrative and turn freedom fighters into terrorists. Using religion as a weapon, they transform their genocides into holy wars, and praise is given to murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Through this, they destroy any opposition and criticism of their actions, believing that they know best, or that it is for the “greater good”. By creating a public enemy of an individual or group, they engineer a population to massacre itself. This is not conjecture, it is history. The 1984 genocide followed this formula, by demonising Sikhs and turning those who fought for Dharam into terrorists through a variety of methods[^3]. Even today, the narratives around the genocide are rife with misinformation and propaganda. It is a fallacy to think that the Indian State has progressed since then. Hindu Nationalism is once again on the rise. Organisations like the RSS are openly performing a cultural genocide through their assault on linguistic and religious freedom. Not surprisingly, Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_ is a bestseller amongst India’s right wing[^4]. It was for the purity and greater good of the German race that Hitler justified his actions. He did not think he was the one in the wrong. Censoring alternative opinions and ostracising opponents becomes a necessity in their minds. By having unchecked power at the top, leaders determine what is just, and are willing to commit the worst terrors to uphold it. The Soviet Union is a prime example of authoritarianism gone wrong. Vladimir Lenin, after leading the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, deposed the Tsar and began to nationalise industries. Rejecting free trade and private property, he and his party enforced a policy which permitted the State to take control of factories and businesses so that they could centrally plan where resources should go. No one could lease or own land, or hire workers. Instead, labour was controlled, and people were assigned roles determined by the State. Critically, farmers in particular were targeted by having any excess crops, above what was needed to feed themselves, confiscated and handed over to the Government to determine how it would be rationed. Initially, food was sold at reduced fixed prices, with the Government acting as the sole purchaser[^5]. Inevitably, as these fixed prices were far lower than the ordinary natural price determined by market forces, the incentive to farm diminished since there was no profit motive. Farmers were less driven to produce extra crops, knowing that all the hard work they put in would not be rewarded since it would simply be confiscated anyway[^6]. As a result, crop production plummeted alongside other industrial outputs. Cities and towns in the USSR were brought to the verge of famine. The farmers worked out ways around these restrictive policies and established a so-called “black market”[^7]. Peasants known as “bagmen” filled their grain into sacks to travel into the cities and sell directly to the people. When Lenin discovered this, he issued his infamous “Hanging Order”, which ordered them to be publicly hanged to instil fear in the populace[^8]. Unsurprisingly, this further acted as a disincentive for labour in the agricultural sector, leading to widespread food shortages and plunging the population into famine. Millions died as a result of this mismanagement of the economy. Lenin, realising his mistake, then drafted what became known as the “New Economic Policy” (NEP) in order to free up the economy, allowing private enterprises based on a profit motive to be established at a limited level[^9]. However, he made it clear this would be maintained under strict State control. This allowed the economy to develop somewhat, which further highlights the importance of the economic freedom on which Azadism is based. Even the black markets acted as a lifeline for those in the cities. However, as the State still retained so much control over so many aspects of the economy, the USSR naturally fell back into crisis when the next autocrat took charge. After World War One, the region of Ukraine was split into various territories, the majority of which was ceded to Bolshevik Russia. Lenin was succeeded by Joseph Stalin, who put an end to the NEP and began to institute new reforms to bolster industrialisation[^10]. To achieve this, Stalin introduced the first of a series of “Five-Year Plans”, which later became common amongst nations aiming to emulate the Soviet central planning models[^11]. Unfortunately, despite an initial boost in employment and industrial output, this too inevitably failed. The peasants became increasingly oppressed, in particular a class known as the “Kulaks”, who were allegedly wealthier. The State began by raising tax rates and setting more demanding performance quotas for the production of crops. Eventually, they expropriated property just as Lenin had done, and deported thousands of families to other areas of the USSR. Stalin then adopted a model of collectivising the farms to further reduce the power of the farmers and peasant classes. This was a step beyond what Lenin had originally implemented by confiscating produce, as it meant that individuals were no longer permitted to own their own farms and land. Instead, they were forced to join large collective farms owned by the State but managed by multiple families[^12]. The State would then pay them a salary depending on how well they met quotas. Naturally, unwilling to part with their private property and generational homes and lands, the peasantry revolted by killing their cattle and destroying necessary machinery. Stalin cracked down harshly in return, sending millions of them to Gulags. With much of the labour supply diminished alongside equipment and livestock, output dropped. However, Stalin still forcibly requisitioned what remained and exported much of it abroad, simultaneously starving the population. Despite Ukrainian wheat exports rising to their highest rates ever at the time, Ukraine itself and other areas of the USSR entered another famine. Soviet state security forces and secret police went house to house to collect the dead. Peasants caught “stealing” food were executed on the spot, and as the death toll rose, countless were thrown into mass graves. One story tells of a situation in which they even took people alive but too weak to resist, so as to save time having to collect their bodies later. They too were thrown into the mass graves and buried alive. The sheer brutality of these events reached such a level, and people were in such a desperate state, that cannibalism emerged as parents began to eat their own children[^13]. The Soviet Union was an extreme example of totalitarian regimes, but not an exception. Their particular brand of ideology and methods was imitated by Mao in China, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people[^14]. Cambodia under Pol Pot was also inspired by them, killing between 13-30% of the entire population[^15]. Even today in North Korea, the Korean people suffer from central planning, living under strict State control. Brutal punishments are handed out to anyone who resists. One particularly gruelling example is the _yeon-jwa-je_, “guilt by association”. This includes punishing entire families, even imprisoning three generations of members in prison camps. Under hellish conditions, adults, the elderly, and children alike are forced to work from 5:30 a.m. to midnight. They are often starved, beaten, and tortured to death[^16]. This is not history, this is happening right now. Countless are the examples of the State exerting its power in this way throughout history. Our own Ithiaas is full of them. From Guru Arjan Dev Ji attaining Shaheedi under the Mughal Emperor Jahangir to the genocide of 1984 at the hands of the Indian State, the Panth is no stranger to tyranny. During Aurangzeb’s reign, the authoritarian Mughal State further degraded religious freedoms, imposing discriminatory tax rates based on religion in the form of the Jizya. Hindu merchants were forced to pay higher tax rates than Muslim merchants. Prominent Hindu temples were destroyed, such as the Kesava Deo (believed to be the birthplace of Krishna), which was demolished and a mosque reconstructed on top. Due to the increasing oppression, several revolts arose and were suppressed by the Emperor’s forces. A religious sect known as the *Satnamis* also rebelled against this tyranny; however, the State forces completely eradicated their entire order[^17]. Even other Muslims, considered unorthodox by the State’s own radical interpretations, were persecuted such as the Shiites and Sufis. Kashmiri Pandits, also feeling the wrath, pleaded with Guru Tegh Bahadur to help them avoid the State mandate to convert to Islam or die. By confronting Aurangzeb and challenging the Emperor to convert him to Islam instead, the Guru was tortured for weeks before finally attaining martyrdom alongside his companions Bhai Dayal Das, Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das. Never giving in to forced conversion, they secured the religious freedoms of the oppressed. This all culminated in the formation of the sovereign military order of the _Khalsa_ by Guru Gobind Singh, expanding on the earlier militaristic institution of the _Akal Sena_ established by his grandfather, Guru Hargobind Sahib, and synthesising the Miri-Piri philosophy. The Guru, witnessing the overarching oppression by the State, aimed to liberate the people by giving them sovereignty over their own lives, free from State coercion. Observing the timidity of the common man, and building upon the work of his predecessors, he transformed them into saint-soldiers. Weapons became articles of faith, and using them to wage war against tyranny became the new religion. > **ਚੁ ਕਾਰ ਅਜ਼ ਹਮਹ ਹੀਲਤੇ ਦਰ ਗੁਜ਼ਸ਼ਤ ॥** > When all other methods are exhausted, > > **ਹਲਾਲ ਅਸਤੁ ਬੁਰਦਨ ਬ ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ੇਰ ਦਸਤ ॥੨੨॥** > To pick up the sword is permissible ||22|| > > *― Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Zafarnamah* ## Jai Bhagouti As alluded to throughout this manifesto, the role of an Azadist Government is reduced to only a few critical areas initially, from which power is then dissolved further. These are: 1. National Defence 2. Policing 3. Justice system 4. Tax Administration This takes economic power out of the hands of a select group of people and into those of the ordinary population participating in private, mutually agreed transactions. The Government has no say in how individuals negotiate their own contracts. As seen earlier, this may take the form of removing any minimum wage laws that violate the freedom of negotiation between employees and employers. Another example is abolishing restrictions on the types of goods and services sold, so long as this does not violate the NAP. A desirable consequence of the latter example is the purchase of weapons. This is encouraged to ensure the ability of the population to defend themselves against tyrannical governments, whether domestic or foreign. A well-armed populace, with weaponry sufficiently permeated throughout society, establishes a fail-safe and a last line of defence against the tyranny previously discussed. Guru Gobind Singh also makes this ideology abundantly clear through numerous examples in their Gurbani and Ithiaas[^18]: > **ਬਿਨਾ ਸਸਤ੍ਰ ਕੇਸੰ ਨਰੰ ਭੇਡ ਜਾਨੋ | ਗਹੇ ਕਾਨ ਤਾਕੋ ਕਿਤੈ ਲੈ ਸਿਧਾਨੋ |੯੮|** > Without long hair (Kesh) and weapons a man is a sheep, grabbed by their ear they can be dragged anywhere |98|. > > **ਇਹੈ ਮੋਰ ਆਗਿਆ ਸੁਨੋ ਲੈ ਪਿਆਰੇ | ਬਿਨਾ ਤੇਗ ਕੇਸੰ ਦਿਵੋ ਨ ਦਿਦਾਰੇ |** > This is my command listen my beloved ones, without a sword or long hair (Kesh), do not come to see me. > > *― Words of Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi* The Guru makes it absolutely clear the state of those who are without any means of defending themselves. Those who are unarmed are susceptible to any form of oppression and tyranny. They can be so easily herded like sheep, and consequently butchered like cattle. Kesh is another symbol representative of freedom, as in those times long unshorn hair was a sign of sovereignty in both temporal and spiritual terms, as well as belonging to the Kshatriya class. Similarly, around the world, intact hair was a common motif for freedom and the expression of one’s traditions and culture, so much so that often the first thing slavers and conquerors would do was cut off the hair of the enslaved and conquered. Long hair, being associated with many other warrior cultures throughout history, was also emphasised by the Guru as essential to remaining free and defiant in the face of tyrants. Through this, he implanted a royal, warrior aesthetic and ethos into the hearts and minds of the average man. A popular reasoning as to why the Khalsa adopted the *Dastar* (turban) is that it represented an open defiance of the State mandates at the time, which decreed that only royalty or select classes were permitted to wear a turban. Not only did the Singhs defy this, but they wore tall turbans, using two cloths, hence _Du_(two)_mala_(cloth). Kshatriyas have always historically been the caste of kings in India, and so when the Guru established the order of the Khalsa, he gave the opportunity for the ordinary man to become a king, regardless of social status, wealth, or other arbitrary conditions. > **ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੋ ਬਾਮ੍ਹਨ ਕੋ ਨਹਿ ਕੈ ਤਪੁ ਆਵਤ ਹੈ ਜੁ ਕਰੋ ॥** > I am the son of a Kshatriya and not of a Brahmin who may instruct for performing severe austerities. > > *― Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Dasam Bani* As private, non-State actors, the Gurus themselves established and maintained their own sovereignty. Erecting the Akal Bunga (Takht), Guru Hargobind Sahib challenged the State’s authority by building its platform higher than permitted by a royal edict decreeing that only the Emperor could sit on a raised platform of over three feet. The Guru, wearing two swords, a *Kalgi*, and other insignia of royalty, regularly sat on this raised platform and mirrored the duties of a king but as a private individual in an act of open defiance against State authority[^19]. Later, his successor Guru Gobind Singh would complete this transition of taking away State power by blessing all Sikhs with the status of kings through the birth of the Khalsa. In fact, the Guru went even further by bestowing their own status to the Khalsa. In this way the Khalsa Panth became the next successor to the Guru alongside the _Sri Guru Granth Sahib_. By doing this, he ended the line of single human Gurus and decentralised the Guruship amongst the Khalsa so that anyone who joins it becomes a part of the Guru, and thus a self-autonomous, sovereign in their own right. > **ੜੋਂ ਕੋ ਮੈਂ ਸ਼ੇਰ ਬਨਾਊਂ** > I will turn jackals into lions, > > **ਰਾਜਨ ਕੇ ਸੰਗ ਰੰਕ ਲੜਾਊਂ** > I will make the servants fight the kings, > > **ਭੂਪ ਗਰੀਬਨ ਕੋ ਕਹਲਾਊਂ** > I will turn poor into rich, > > **ਚਿੜੀਉਂ ਸੇ ਮੈਂ ਬਾਜ ਤੜਾਊਂ** > I will make sparrows break hawks, > > **ਸਵਾ ਲਾਖ ਸੇ ਏਕ ਲੜਾਊਂ** > I will make 1 fight 125,000, > > **ਤਬੈ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਨਾਮ ਕਹਾਊਂ॥** > then my name shall be Gobind Singh. > > *― Oral tradtion, attributed to Sri Guru Gobind Singh* The hawks here are the tyrannical rulers of the time, the corrupt authoritarian State[^20]. Seeing the oppression levied upon the people of India and the atrocities committed by the Mughal Government, the Guru crafted a militia of his own from ordinary people to combat this. They embedded the warrior ethos of the Kshatriya into the saintly nature of the Sikhs, crafted over nine lifetimes of the preceding Gurus. Through this, the ordinary people were uplifted and transformed into warriors and kings. Again, all in the effort to maintain freedom and individual liberty against the State. Tyrants, in the examples of the previous subsection, recognised the danger of an armed population and so acted swiftly to ban them. The Soviets confiscated guns and enacted strict gun control laws after taking power, a policy similarly replicated by other parties with tendencies towards central planning and overarching State control. A particularly egregious example was the Nazi Party of Germany under Hitler, who, after removing most of his opposition, only then relaxed restrictions (especially for fellow Nazis), while Jews were strictly forbidden from owning guns and instead were thrown into concentration camps[^21]. Ironically, the US National Rifle Association (NRA) used a similar tactic of selective gun rights in 1967 when it supported a bill to restrict the open carry of firearms in California, despite its heavy pro-gun stance. This was an effort to restrict the Black Panther Party in particular and curb their activism. In the process it highlighted the double standard the NRA held when Black people sought to exercise the same rights to bear arms[^22]. During the British Raj in India, restrictions on weapons were also strictly enforced. Slowly, within the Panth itself, Shastar began to lose its once highly respected position as post-colonial distortions of Sikhi seeped into the minds of the people. Where before, _Saroops_ of the _Guru Granth Sahib_ were rarer and less accessible, _Shastar Prakash_ was common in Gurdwaras and memorials to Shaheeds instead, acting as the point to prostrate towards and perform _parikrama_ around[^23]. One of the few groups left that preserved these martial ideals were the Nihang Singhs. However, many of these warriors attained martyrdom fighting the British alongside their Jathedar, Akali Baba Hanuman Singh. The few survivors retreated south to Hazur Sahib, away from much of British influence. This is why even today they maintain many of the original Kshatriya traditions of our Gurus and the Singhs, such as _Jhatka_ and _Shikaar_[^24]. After this period, a “shoot-on-sight” policy was enacted, under which any Nihang Singh seen was to be killed immediately and shot twice in the head, since they were known to continue fighting even after the first shot[^25]. This extermination did much to suppress the warrior ethos of the Sikh Panth as a whole. Even the Kirpan was not spared, as its size was gradually reduced, eventually forcing a _Hukamnama_ to be issued by the head Granthi at Hazur Sahib at the time, Akali Hazura Singh, decreeing that a Kirpan worn with a _Kamarkassa_ should be no less than one foot in length. Giani Sher Singh, a prominent scholar and Granthi[^26], also explained the tragic consequences of the Panth’s disarmament in one of their *Katha*. During the 1984 genocide, those families who kept the Guru’s _Shastardhari Maryada_ alive were the ones who survived, while those who did not were brutally murdered, their children burnt alive on the streets, and their mothers and daughters having their honour taken from them. This is the importance of keeping armed, and of being unrestricted in doing so. It is to protect oneself and others when the State follows in the footsteps of the tyranny before it, thus continuing the age-old tradition of _democide_. The population themselves must recognise and accept responsibility for their own sovereignty and for preserving the freedom upon which an Azadist State is built. Democide is not an exception: it is an inevitability of authoritarianism. It is only ever a matter of _when_, not _if_. For these reasons, Azadism does away with any form of gun control, confiscation, or selective rights to weapons, by granting the right to own arms unrestricted to all citizens. The Founding Fathers of the United States, similarly recognising these factors, codified this sentiment in their Constitution through the Second Amendment, ensuring the right for citizens to bear arms: > _“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”_ A well-armed populace acts as a fail-safe against oppression. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the trade of weapons is not restricted. People themselves must take responsibility for maintaining their own freedoms and constantly ensure that the Government does not expand its power and influence unchecked. The use of weapons against those who seek to take away freedom is morally legitimate, even if State laws declare it illegal[^27]. If the State or anyone else attempts to remove the right to bear arms, then the private individual should respond with the same defiance that King Leonidas of Sparta showed to the Persians when commanded to surrender his weapons. Freedom can be seen as the natural state of things, rather than something that must necessarily be acquired. To achieve freedom is to remove the barriers that inhibit it. are tools that allow individuals to do so. It becomes abundantly clear why the Guru venerates weapons, recognising that they are the vehicle to freedom itself[^28]. > **ਅਸਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨ ਖੰਡੋ ਖੜਗ ਤੁਪਕ ਤਬਰ ਅਰੁ ਤੀਰ ॥** > As, Kripan , Khanda, Khadag (types of swords), Tupak (gun), Tabar (hatchet/axe), > > **ਸੈਫ ਸਰੋਹੀ ਸੈਹਥੀ ਯਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੈ ਪੀਰ ॥੩॥** > Teer (arrow), Saif , Sarohi and Saihathi (other types of swords), these are our Saints ||3|| > > *― Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Shastar Naam Mala* The horrors of what happens when the State becomes the sole monopoly on force is why Azadism despises forced authoritarianism in all its forms. It completely rejects ideologies and actions that aim to give greater power to the State, whether economically or politically, since it recognises the vast suffering that ensues when it goes wrong. It is not blinded by naivety to simply expect that by electing someone new, somehow this time “it will be different”. The Mughals replaced the Lodis, Lenin was brought to power after deposing the Tsar, and Hitler too inherited the status of Führer via democratic means. Simply replacing one centrally planned State with another, one authoritarian regime with the next, is not the solution. The problem is the State itself. Too much power concentrated in too few hands. When the Guru makes reference to securing _Raaj_, is he referring to just another State, political party, or regime? Or is he referring to the people themselves, private individuals taking the right to rule their own lives in their own hands? Azadism interprets this as the latter. This self-autonomy is perhaps most clear when it comes to the operating philosophy underpinning the Khalsa: > **ਹਮ ਪਤਿਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਦਈ ਹੰਨੈ ਹੰਨੈ ਲਾਇ ।** > Satguru had conferred sovereignty on the Khalsa Panth, as well as on each individual Singh of that fraternity. > > **ਜਹਿਂ ਜਹਿਂ ਬਹੈਂ ਜਮੀਨ ਮਲ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਹਿਂ ਤਖਤ ਬਨਾਇਂ ।੩੯।** > Wherever a Singh sets his foot and settles on earth, He establishes his own self-reliant/autonomous sovereignty (Takht). > > *― Rattan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Prakash* True Raaj is not the ability to coerce and command others to do your bidding. It is the power to take sovereignty over your own mind, speech and action, as well as allowing others the freedom to do the same. > **ਆਈ ਪੰਥੀ ਸਗਲ ਜਮਾਤੀ ਮਨਿ ਜੀਤੈ ਜਗੁ ਜੀਤੁ ॥** > See the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of yogis; conquer your own mind, and conquer the world. > > *― Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Jap Ji Sahib* Whenever the State oversteps its role, it must be the people who take back this power into their own hands. Weapons in all their forms are the tools to do this. To be _Shastardhari_ is not merely to open an old sword museum in your house full of rusty blades, it is the constant striving to do battle and the preparedness that comes with training — to be _Tyaar bar Tyaar_. Additionally, weapons are not just limited to a medieval equipment. Even the Gurus advanced their arsenals by adopting the latest firearms in their own times and even inventing their own cannons[^29]. Furthermore, fighting battles was not confined to the physical struggle. Just as the Guru killed Aurangzeb through the _Zafarnamah_, so too must freedom be upheld by the people’s right to criticise their Government without censorship. They can write and inspire policy change through non-physical means. Whatever method of battle is chosen, it must be fought constantly to limit the power of the State and to avoid tyranny and oppression. The Khalsa especially should realise this responsibility, as it has done throughout its history. Pandering to pro-State ideas and granting greater powers to Government is not only antithetical to Azadism, but to Khalsa _Mat_ in general. This manifesto is one effort to combat the growing sentiment in the Panth of supporting nationalisation and other anti-private policies. The vast majority of this sentiment comes from ignorance of what such policies actually do in terms of freedom. The mark of a society declining into totalitarianism is the relinquishing of power from the people and into the hands of a few. This may be done in many ways, as shown throughout this manifesto: censorship, nationalisation of industry, increased regulations and licences, but perhaps most importantly, gun control. So that, when these authoritarian systems eventually fall into barbarity, the people have nowhere to turn and no means of resistance. Do not expect the world to step in. Who stepped in when the people of the Soviet Union were starving or thrown into Gulags? Who gave aid to the Native Americans when they were invaded and enslaved? What about when the Jews were persecuted under Hitler? Where was the world in the countless massacres and genocides throughout history? Any action that was taken came too late. Neither are these tragedies just confined to the past. Who is stepping in now to save the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, or the North Koreans? Or the Palestinians and Israeli people who are caught in the middle of two Governments warring with each other? These horrors can only exist when the people themselves hand over their collective power to a small group of “representatives”, forgetting that a Government, a king, an emperor, or a dictator was meant to be a servant to the people and not the other way around. ## Democracy To avoid these tyrannical situations arising in the first place, it is imperative that the Government is structured in such a way as to mitigate this risk. Most of this risk has already been alleviated by the nature of an Azadist Government, being one of minimal intervention and restricted to the roles mentioned previously. This could be formalised into a written constitution of sorts, which should then be held in the highest regard by the people themselves. The laws in that constitution should be regarded almost as sacred as religious texts to ensure their adherence and help it seep into the cultural fabric of an Azadist society (which is more important). This can be done with the aid of religious institutions too, where the core NAP principle the constitution would be based upon is likened to the “Golden Rule” present in many interpretations of world religions. In addition, the armed population should always be ready to defend this constitution, lest they risk suffering the consequences of authoritarianism. At the end of the day, a constitution is restrictions upon Government. It cements into law and makes explicit the fundamental, natural rights every human being is born with and therefore what is not permissible for the State to violate. It is therefore the people’s own responsibility to maintain this first and foremost. Any changes are likely to be insidious, but once this document is established, it should not be amended in any way that adds further power to the Government. The current stance of Azadism already allows for the maximum participation possible. A society can only be classed as Azadist if, at most, the State is responsible for defence, policing, courts of justice, and tax administration (and that, primarily for NIT distribution and funding the other three departments). Anything that privatises these functions further is simply more _Azaad_ (free), until you arrive at full privatisation, or _Azaadi_ (liberty). But a regression on this scale is a step towards *Ghulami* (slavery). For the State to have more freedom, it requires the private individual to reduce theirs. For a private individuals to maintain their liberty, it must restrict the freedom of the Government. In this regard, there is a fixed pie. Another recommendation for the well-functioning of an Azadist society is to do away with direct democracy in the form of simply giving everyone a vote. However, it is unlikely that there would be many issues requiring votes in the first place, since the market itself is responsible for economic decisions such as trade deals, minimum wages, welfare, or any other policy a politician would typically decide. The Athenians were among the earliest civilisations to actively contest the rise of authoritarian systems. They had learned the lessons of giving too much power to a ruling elite and knew full well the consequences of having freedoms eroded[^30]. Through the establishment of democracy, they aimed to disseminate power amongst the population. Although an improvement, there were still serious weaknesses present in the Athenian experiment. What inevitably arose was a system in which those vying for power would use any manner of misleading speech to appear superior to their opponents, rather than having any rational policies. In such a democracy, *rhetoric* is greater than *reason*. The voting populace, who were not educated in the nuance of certain matters, would simply pick the candidate who had the more convincing argument, but not necessarily the more logical one. The word given to such people who mastered this art of deception was “demagogue”[^31]. This issue did not go unnoticed by the Greek philosophers though. Plato describes an argument presented by his teacher Socrates in his work _Gorgias_, where he gives the example of a court trial indicting a doctor. The accuser was a cook who baked meats and treats, and the jury was a group of young boys. The cook could easily sway the jury’s opinion by highlighting the doctor’s scary-looking instruments, bitter-tasting potions, and other practices, while claiming that he, on the other hand, offered tasty sweets. Amongst a population who do not know any better, the doctor was incapable of making any substantial counter-argument to persuade them[^32]. Socrates further expands on this in Plato’s _Republic_, using his famous allegory of the “Ship of Fools”. You would not allow just anyone to manage the sailing of a ship and all the responsibilities involved. Instead, you would want those skilled and educated in these matters to be responsible. The same logic is then applied to voting and deciding how a society should be governed. Seeing the inherent flaws of democracy, Socrates advocated that voting should be recognised as a skill requiring time and effort to hone. It is not simply a birthright[^33]. There have been proposed improvements for this system since those times. However, as I will explain shortly, many of these proposals do not address the fundamental issue. Nonetheless, it may still be worth mentioning. One suggestion is that voting rights should be reserved only for those who have a proven ability to think rationally about the arguments presented and have demonstrated that they have indeed considered their vote carefully. Just as a driving test is required before obtaining a licence, similarly, a test could be established ahead of a vote that those wishing to participate must pass. If citizens recognise the importance of being educated enough to vote, they may demand this education in the market. Those who decide not to, or are unable to, put in the time and effort required to pass this test would simply be barred from voting. The test should be designed to avoid bias and should primarily consist of questions that ascertain whether people even know what certain terminology means. Those creating these tests should obviously not be allowed to vote. All of this is intended to reduce the effect of demagoguery, whereby politicians manipulate voters by gaining sympathy through rhetorical arguments, pushing policies that are counter-productive but sound appealing in order to gain power. The reality is that many people are not educated enough to make an informed decision, and so the rest of the population should not have to suffer as a result. But what happens if a single class of people is actively restricted from this education? Who decides what questions are included in this test in the first place? Does having more minds truly solve the complexity of certain decisions? There are also many _stupid-clever_ people. And there are many who are truly intelligent but still make the wrong decisions[^34]. By introducing barriers to entry for political representation, do we really reduce the risk of demagoguery, or do we simply give skilled demagogues a smaller group to influence? Azadism sees democracy as fundamentally a form of mob rule. It is the majority deciding on behalf of all. Minorities will inevitably have their interests sidelined for the benefit of the majority. This goes completely against the principles of freedom and the NAP upon which Azadism stands. The underlying issue is not the presence of uninformed voters, it is the very concept that a majority is allowed to enforce decisions that affect all on the behalf of all, or impose regulation on those who do not consent. Democracy is simply a dictatorship of the majority. The only context in which it is acceptable as per Azadism is *privately*. Private democracies can exist if each consenting individual participates voluntarily and agrees to have their personal will overridden by a majority vote. There is nothing wrong with this, and it already exists in social groups everywhere in situations as mundane as deciding where to go hiking with friends. Similarly, private autocrats can exist too, as long as adherence to their rules is voluntary. This is what most businesses resemble, which often have autocratic structures and company policies. They are almost states within a State, with a king at the top (the CEO) and all his ministers (managers) and subjects (employees in various roles) beneath. However, the difference here is that each member can voluntarily choose to leave at any time. If people do not wish to seek employment in that structure, nothing prevents them from trying different forms of organisational management, such as worker co-operatives, provided that everyone is still free to leave and join at will. It just so happens that human beings tend towards hierarchical structures, and autocratic systems seem to accomplish tasks more quickly, as there is less deliberation (for better or worse)[^35]. But the core elements here is consent and voluntaryism, which is what defines a system or mechanism as private. As long as all of this occurs privately, there is no problem with either *voluntary* democracy or autocracy. In fact, the latter is what we Sikhs see the Guru as: a private “monarch”, transcending the royalty of the State. Each Sikh is a subject to this authority voluntarily and abides by this monarch’s “dictates” completely of their own volition[^36]. No matter how large the majority, a non-voluntary democracy at the State level, in which one group decides on behalf of another, is always unjust in principle if the other group is forced to comply. Similarly, the Founding Fathers of the United States also recognised these issues inherent with democracy and instead established a *constitutional republic* in which the rule of law would always take precedence[^37]. In fact, the word _democracy_ was never used once in their constitution or the Declaration of Independence. They feared the same outcome that Socrates had warned of: that a direct democracy would eventually end in tyranny, as the people would inevitably elect a dictator over time. This is exactly what happened in Germany with the rise of Hitler, who was also elected democratically. Although a republic is also technically democratic, it introduces a series of measures to ensure the constitution is held in the highest regard, and that representatives are elected to make decisions on behalf of those they represent. The problem with the early American system, however, was the barring of groups such as women and Black people from engaging with any of this. The Founding Fathers themselves followed along with the thousands-of-years-old tradition of slavery, despite its monstrous social implications and economic drawbacks[^38]. Even today, the way in which representation is determined has become completely broken due to a practice known as _gerrymandering_. Elected groups are able to redraw the boundaries in which representatives are chosen so that certain parties are favoured over others, even if they have received fewer votes overall[^39]. Combined with the infiltration of “special interest groups” (lobbyists) and the sheer amount of responsibilities the Government now assumes, this results in a system arguably as flawed as the very direct democracy they had hoped to avoid. To reiterate, the role of a Government in an Azadist society would be solely for defence and protection against entities that aim to destroy individual liberty. Its purpose is to ensure the free functioning of markets and the mutual transactions that occur within the its jurisdiction. The enemies of an Azadist society are those who disregard the NAP, and it is the Government’s duty to protect against them. However, you may be wondering, that throughout this manifesto, Azadism has taken a strong stance against the Government by highlighting its incompetency, destructiveness and paradoxically, it is an institution which is wholly built off of breaching the NAP. Why then entrust it with some of the most crucial functions required for the well-being of a society? Is it not hypocrisy to allow the institution that breaks the NAP be the one to uphold it? Why have a Government at all? The reason is that people have *Stockholm syndrome*. After thousands of years of being ruled and abused under various forms of authoritarianism, it has seeped into our collective consciousness that we need a Government. We have learned to love our abuser. The idea of free markets is a relatively new one, especially as it is often portrayed today, and thus is still widely misunderstood or simply absent from common awareness[^40]. To reach a stage where society becomes open to these ideas, a gradual, step-by-step process must be undertaken in order to transition safely. The people are simply not yet ready for full Azaadi in many cases. Many do not know what Azaadi is, even if they may repeat slogans for it. And when you reveal to them the truth, they cling to the comfort they falsely perceive the State provides. The comprehensive outline of exactly how an ideal Azadist system would function in the long-term politically goes beyond the scope of this particular publication and will be expanded upon in later publications. What has been proposed throughout this manifesto is a system in which decisions are made by individuals that affect only themselves and those who freely consent to be affected by them. Instead of pushing for any system that aims to decide on behalf of others, Azadism inherently removes this ability and places importance on maintaining freedom while actively protecting against behaviours that breach the freedom of others. Now, the intelligent reader may be able to logically deduce how a society could be structured in the long-term to maximise this, but this will be the topic of the sequel to the manifesto in which Azadism’s *Stanistan* model will be explained in depth. However, again, this is a long-term ideal and societies do not necessarily need to start with that model. Azadism can be implemented quite flexibly with existing models too, albeit with unique compromises and understandings of the risk levels. When choosing between direct democracy, republic, monarchy, or any other form of government, each needs to be assessed on how well it can uphold the Azadist principles. In other words, only that system of governance is truly acceptable which upholds the NAP. A dictatorship could achieve this quite quickly if the dictator is competent and benevolent, but it is a riskier gamble since power is so centralised. It can quickly go the other way if the dictator is not able or unwilling to implement the necessary safeguards. Alternatively, democracy can be a safer route, but it is slow and more difficult to enact real systemic changes once it is already up and running. Like cement, the longer it is left dry the more solidified it becomes. Implementing Azadism in democratic society requires quality education amongst a mature electorate. Each approach will have its own challenges and opportunities, but there are also strategies to implement Azadism in novel ways too, taking into account how the world works today and where it is heading. But that again also goes outside the scope of this manifesto. The question about *how to get there* is only relevant amongst those who align on *where we are going*. This manifesto is communicating the latter and hoping to identify individuals who do align with the vision who should reach out and make themselves known. Lastly, it must be noted that any Government that adopts Azadism as an political-economic operating system for their society is, by default, condemning itself to become gradually more limited, and having the economy it presides over more privatised and more decentralised. A wise and compassionate Government will heed this, and the wicked will relent. So what is the nature of the ideal Government? ## Raaj Karega Khalsa To start, we will begin with the nature of those individuals in Government. Firstly, they should adhere to a philosophy of non-duality. Seeing all things as simply expressions of what is fundamentally unified, their definition of God should be the very quality of existence itself. God and existence should become synonymous in understanding. Through this, all humanity is considered equal, and therefore worthy of the same love, protection, and respect they expect for themselves. No one is higher, and no one is lower. Nothing is to be feared or hated, since all of it is a manifestation of themselves. For them, righteousness and duty is paramount but moderated by compassion and empathy. This should not merely be *believed*, but internalised through daily remembrance of these truths. Meditation and singing the praises of existence are the expected methods of remembrance. In addition to these practices, they must adhere to a strict discipline of abandoning the vices of lust, anger, greed, attachment, and pride. This is measured by the extent of their involvement in charitable acts of kindness and devotion to these methods of remembrance. Furthermore, their efforts in studying existence and their time spent teaching others are also worthy of consideration. They must also actively seek to understand the nature of the self as illusory, merely a story we tell ourselves[^41]. It is a heuristic necessary only for playing along with this play of energy and matter. They should understand that objective reality acts as a base layer upon which a subjective layer of beliefs, systems of thought, ideas and religions is placed on top of to help us understand, or at least navigate reality. The only way to observe objectivity is to remove the “I” from the equation[^42]. Until that happens, these individuals need to actively strive for that state of being. In this way, the opinions, lifestyles, and beliefs of others are respected as simply different subjective mappings upon existence. This is the spiritual philosophy necessary for the functioning of a limited Government that strives to uphold human liberty and freedom. Additionally, the means by which they interact with the world must be to protect against those who desire to destruction of freedom. Therefore, it is essential that these individuals be skilled in the use of force but restrained in when to use it. They should be immersed in both combat and spirituality, so that even when they use violence, it is only ever in the interest of protecting freedoms and the lives of the innocent. Fighting out of hatred is not only shunned but illogical. How can you hate when you realise that all are simply bundles of atoms travelling through this universe on different trajectories to your own bundle? If all is you, and you are everything, who else is there to fear or hate? Compassion, righteousness and duty, willpower, and determination should be paramount virtues for members of this Government if they wish to remain in power. Balancing both spiritual and temporal aspects, they should be saint-soldiers. Critically, however, they should be saints first and then soldiers, always valuing the spiritual above the temporal. To help ensure this, personal sacrifices should be made by these individuals to radically change their appearance and outward aesthetic, serving as an clear reminder of the responsibilities they hold. They should keep their hair long, to represent the long hair of warrior-kings and spiritual masters, as well as a historic symbol of free people. They should care for this hair and uphold standards of hygiene of both thought and action, symbolised by a wooden comb. Another reminder should be an iron bangle worn on the wrists, as if handcuffed to their duty. Cotton drawers with a knot to secure them should be worn, to convey a message of purity and reluctance to succumb to uncontrollable desires and vices. Lastly, a weapon must become another limb of their body, never to be parted with, so that they are always armed and ready to fight against injustice and tyranny… what a coincidence — something like this already exists! Thankfully, none of this needs to be created from scratch, as Guru Gobind Singh has already provided an organisation of this nature. Azadism thus suggests placing the _Khalsa_ as the “Government”, or perhaps more accurately, facilitators of an ideal Azadist society. It is now more important than ever that initiation into the Khalsa via _Khandai Di Pahul_ is re-formalised as a serious, professional event, just as it was during the Guru’s time and throughout the Khalsa’s history. The Khalsa is similar in ways to the noble warrior classes of the past, such as European Knights or Japanese Samurai. And so, if the Khalsa today does not wish to fall into irrelevancy like those examples, it must treat its own version of knighthood via Khandai Di Pahul seriously. It must ensure that this becomes a formal introduction into a Khalsa army, rather than merely a blind ritual with no commitment. By joining the Khalsa Panth and becoming a *Khalsapanthi*, an individual must be conscious that they are now adopting the duty to engage in *Dharam Yudh* (not just physically) and advance the cause of *Khalsa Raaj*. This is not an exclusive cult, but an order that welcomes anyone from any background if they are willing to adopt the discipline and the mission. By abandoning previous names, castes, and other social allegiances, they must take on a new identity as part of the Khalsa. One that strives to uphold liberty and contest tyranny. *** The specifics of how the Khalsa may be structured goes beyond the scope of this publication, since the primary focus here is the economics. But by setting these foundations first, the necessary framework is established to go further later. It is from this basis we can apply some principles of Azadist economics to begin thinking about the ideal way to manage the risk inherent in giving one organisation a monopoly on force. Some of these principles, which have been the bedrock of Azadism, are decentralisation and competition. Applying them in this context, Azadism encourages the Khalsa to be arranged once again into _Misls_, as they were before the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. However, there are some key adjustments to that system to avoid the pitfalls and maximise the successes compared to when the Khalsa last attempted it. Again, this exploration will be covered in more detail, alongside its relation to the Stanistan model, in the subsequent publication in this Azaadnama series. It has been consciously left out of this manifesto for brevity and so that these specifics are given due attention. The *Mislisation* of the Khalsa, and the establishing of *Mislocracy* is long-term vision, however, it is something the Khalsa can begin making tangible steps towards today. Accompanying strategy documents published by Bunga Azaadi will detail these and through their implementation the Panth will usher in a *Second Misl Era*, with a *Modernised Misl System*. ## Goal of Government & Enforcing Ethics What is the overall purpose or direction for the people? Is there a combined national purpose at all? Azadism leaves people free to pursue their own interests. It is not ethical to enforce our “Sikh values” on others. People should be free to make their own decisions and to face the consequences of them, so long as this does not impede the right of others to do the same. This is essentially the only ethic that a Khalsa Government needs to enforce. This naturally covers crimes such as theft, assault, murder, fraud etc. [^43] Sikhs, as private citizens, can educate and promote Sikhi, but like all other philosophies in an Azadist State, they cannot legally (or ethically) use violence to do so. If Sikhs were to utilise the State to push Sikhi, it would by default be an activity based on coercion, because anything a State does is financed through taxation. Additionally, if the State were to implement any “religious” regulations (for instance, requiring shops to close at prayer times) it must ultimately use violence to enforce them. Instead, Sikhs should rely on the veracity of their arguments and share them in compelling ways for others to consider. Their ideas, like everyone else’s, must compete in the _free market of ideas_. A similar diverse environment of philosophies, ideas, and religions is where Sikhi emerged in the first place. Even in unfree environments, where the State attempted to regulate freedom of thought, prioritise certain religions or interpretations of them, and persecute non-adherents, Sikhi still persisted and resisted. If we are confident in our Guru’s teachings, what is there to worry about? The Gurus themselves were comfortable with this approach. Guru Tegh Bahadur was touring India conducting _Parchar_ at the time of his son’s birth (Guru Gobind Singh). Guru Nanak spread Sikhi across the world on his travels. We do not need the help of a State (funded through immoral practices like taxation) to spread Sikhi. As Sikhs, we already believe it is the best spiritual philosophy available (otherwise, you would not be a Sikh), and so, as Bhai Jugraj Singh used to say and do: ‍ > _“Sikhi doesn’t need selling, it needs telling”_ As a result, he has introduced countless into Sikhi through his efforts, including the author of this manifesto[^44]. If we, as Sikhs, want people to live in a certain way, we should first live that way ourselves. Kavi Santokh Singh, the author of the epic *Suraj Parkash*, mentions 3 ways in which people can persuade each other[^45]: **‍1. Through physical force (this is the worst way)** Historically, we can look at Islamic conquests, the Christian Crusades, or other acts by groups who enforced their ideals on others through violence. However, this is an obvious violation of the NAP. **2. Through speech (better)** Bad ideas should be fought with good ideas. The Government’s role here is to maintain an environment that allows for free speech and should never introduce State censorship in any form. Alongside this, no media outlet or ideology should be promoted by the State. **3. Through example (this is the best)** Under this method, any change someone wishes to make in their society begins with themselves. This forces people to be critical of their own suggestions while maintaining individuals’ rights to choose how to live their own lives. Since people generally act out of self-interest, seeing a certain lifestyle produce better results than their own is often enough to persuade them to change. Therefor the effort one spends lecturing others, or forcing others into compliance, is often better spent improving oneself to become a role model and inspire others. There should also be a level of acceptance, and humility that no single lifestyle fits all. People may take what is best for them and leave what does not work. Maybe the specific way you are doing things are wrong? Having the freedom and diversity of approaches in society provides many examples to learn from, especially for those who think they are already right about everything. Sikhi is not just one rigid instruction manual, but rather a framework to orient your thinking through. How that actually manifests into actions and how an individual interacts with reality, within their own unique contexts, is highly bespoke. Sikhi is the development of a personal relationship with the Guru after all. If Sikhi had to be summarised in one sentence, it would be “the pursuit of spiritual and political liberty”. To impose through violence or the threat of it, on others is just simply anti-Sikhi. However, there is one exception to this and it defines the purpose of the Guru Khalsa. For those lifestyle choices that harm a non-consenting third party, it is the Khalsa’s role, or duty, to use appropriate force to protect that third party. It is from this we conceive our notion of justice and injustice. Those who breach the liberty of others, thereby forfeit their own rights to freedom. This, alongside mutual contracts, is the only exception where breaking the NAP is legally justified. ## Contracts and Law Although the topic of this manifesto centres on economics, as with the previous sections on governance, the legal system will again only be briefly addressed here, applying the same principles upon which the economic spheres of an Azadist society are founded. While the following will elucidate the basics of an Azadist legal framework, grounded in the liberty principles that underpin this entire manifesto, a subsequent publication will expand on this topic in further detail. If substantiated by the courts, two or more consenting parties are free to form a contract giving up their State-protected rights. However, this must be overseen by the courts as a reliable third-party witness to determine whether all parties are signing the contract voluntarily and not under duress. For example, there are many laws and offences within Islamic law (_Sharia_) that are not normally recognised as legal or illegal in other judicial systems. Therefore, it may be difficult in non-Muslim nations to fully live according to Sharia, as it could potentially conflict with existing laws[^46]. Since an Azadist society does not punish “victimless crimes,” many actions considered offences under Sharia would not be punishable at the State level. What Azadism provides is a system in which Muslims are free to impose these laws, but only on other Muslims who have consented to them. By formalising a contract, each Muslim who chooses to adhere to this additional legal code may register their commitment to do so. If they break a Sharia law, part of that contract would specify that they are liable for the corresponding punishment. A crime that does not break the NAP but is deemed punishable under Sharia can then be dealt with by dedicated _Sharia_ courts. The only way for a Muslim to withdraw from this would be to leave the jurisdiction in which those laws apply, which would void their contract and place them under the protection of the Khalsa (unless the offence also broke the NAP). Any legal system that exists based on religion or any other affiliation is layered on top of the wider NAP-based framework upheld by an Azadist Government. As long as there is freedom to join and leave these groups, any contract can be drawn up and enforced in this manner. And these sorts of contracts already exist. Two cage fighters both technically break the NAP when they fight, but do so with mutual consent. Since both have voluntarily chosen to engage in this competition, there is no reason for the State to intervene. Another example, more common historically, is the duel. Both parties are free to write a contract relieving the other of any legal repercussions if one kills or injures the other. But again, it must be stressed that a contract must be recorded and overseen by a third-party witness to ensure mutual consent. Initially, an Azadist court would take on the role of facilitating this and acting as that witness. Azadism does not recognise Sikhi as a religion _per se_ (at least not in the post-colonial, western classification), but the Khalsa order could fit into this category[^47]. The Khalsa is one particular “way” of expressing Sikhi. Other traditional paths include the Udasis, Nirmale, and Sevapanthis, and more recently, perhaps the Namdhari Panth or Taksali denominations. However, Sikhi on its own can be followed by anyone — Muslims, Hindus, or those of no religion. Guidance can be taken from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Guru Khalsa Panth to whatever degree, regardless of any other label. A Sikh is simply anyone who takes inspiration from the Guru, regardless of degree. For this reason, it makes little sense for “Sikhi courts” to emerge in the same way Sharia ones might. Instead, independent Panthic courts could be established based on individual _Rehit Maryade_, with each “way” of Sikhi able to establish its own practices. Sikhs could then decide to join a specific path—or none at all. This approach is especially relevant to the Khalsa when structured in a Misl system. Each Misl can set its own Maryada relevant to its context. If someone wishes to avoid punishment or responsibility, they are free to leave and renounce their status as a participant. This idea draws inspiration again from the Sakhi of the 40 Mukte. The Guru himself permitted apostasy among members of the Khalsa through a form of written contract, having them sign a letter of dismissal (which was later torn up when they returned and attained martyrdom on the battlefield). The freedom of choice should not be infringed upon unless the NAP is broken. The NAP is the foundation on which an Azadist legal system is built. Those who break the NAP and harm others without mutual consent must be held at trial to determine guilt and subsequently punished in whatever way the courts deem appropriate. Contracts, therefore, are the principal means by which voluntary order is created in an Azadist society. They are not merely paperwork but the living agreements that define expectations, responsibilities, and accountability between consenting individuals. When built on the bedrock of property rights (as an extension of self-ownership), contracts give rise to clear jurisdiction. If property is considered an extension of the human right to self-determination, then all justice or injustice can be traced back to whether someone has trespassed upon or interfered with property that does not belong to them, or violated a mutually agreed contract. This is why in an Azadist society, property rights are inseparable from human rights: to own property (including one’s own body) is to exercise autonomy. The same principles that protect the body protect the boundaries around what you have created, traded, or peacefully acquired. Any other “victimless crime” is dealt with by independent justice systems that sit on top of this framework and are completely voluntary to participate in, as determined by contracts. Since these acts are victimless, there is no onus on Azadist courts to intervene. If someone breaks private law that does not breach State law, they must either accept punishment privately (as permitted by the contract) or apostatise and relinquish any benefits that contract provided (residency, employment, knowledge, etc). Consider the case of cannabis. This affects no one but the user. If a Nihang Singh wishes to prepare *Shaheedi Degh*, he should be free to grow as much marijuana as he likes. He should also be free to carry any weapon he chooses, wear whatever _Bana_ he wishes, and practise _Jhatka_ on any animal he owns. Who is the State to say otherwise? The only reason the State should intervene is if the Singh becomes overly _Mast_ and begins throwing the _Nughda_ at other people or their property without their consent[^48]. Again, it must be stressed that not all regions, groups, or organisations must set up private legal systems. Sikhs in general do not have to do this. The only context in which it may make sense to have a contract is when a specific order is joined. For Sikhs joining the Khalsa, this could be formalised at the moment of recieving _Khande Di Pahul_. Paper certificates are already issued at Hazur Sahib stating the new name and date, so this could easily be modified to make it contractually binding, with the Hukams given by the Jathedar clearly expressed in writing. Whilst this may help with providing a sense of accountability, it is truly effective if the Jatha or Misl administering Pahul also provide some benefits that an initiated Khalsapanthi enjoys. This could range from exclusive discounts from Sikh merchants to one-to-one mentorship. --- To conclude this final section, the diagram below represents in simplified form how different systems of law can coexist. At the bottom, you have the underlying NAP base layer that all who live within Azadism must adhere to, unless they have agreed to a contract stating otherwise. On top of this base layer sit these contracts. These may also form part of a whole additional legal system that each individual can voluntarily participate in if they so desire. For example, a private city-state within the Azadist system may require residents to abide by a set of laws before moving in. However, these laws are constrained only to the jurisdiction of the property owned by the city-state’s proprietors.  A final point to note is that these jurisdictions in which legal systems apply, no matter how large or small, complex or simple, or even if the territory they occupy is contiguous or not, are what Azadism labels a “Stan”. These *Stans* form a network known as a *Stanistan*, and Misls are employed to maintain law and order. This will be core focus of the sequel to this manifesto. --- ## Other Useful Resources Link: [Russia's Last Capitalists (cdlib.org)](https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft2199n7h5;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print) Link: [An economic history of the U.S.S.R. : Nove, Alec : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/economichistoryo00nove/page/54/mode/2up?q=black+market&view=theater) Link: [Ukraine - Ukraine in the interwar period | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Ukraine-in-the-interwar-period) Link: [The Atrocities That Nobody Knows About - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9xrmJ3UX9w) Link: [Nazinsky: Stalin’s Cannibal Island - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOwcYLGTMo&list=PLxUfDdw5RjEJc_uuNrkXyNgUHonoTP6L8&index=4) See Chapter 10 - Why the worst get on top (page 26 of PDF): Link: [Road To Serfdom (mises.org)](https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf) ## Footnotes [^1]: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” [^2]: **Link: [Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth Pocketbook.indb (mises.org)](https://cdn.mises.org/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf)** [^3]: Since the target audience for this manifesto is primarily Sikhs and the Khalsa, I will desist from delving further into these examples in more detail. The reason being that this manifesto aims to widen the scope of understanding by introducing examples from all over the world and throughout history, and so will only touch into our own Ithiaas when necessary. The point of doing this is to show that our problem is not with anyone particular state or set of politicians. It is with the very idea of the State in general. Nonetheless, it is still crucial to mention this in order to relate with the subject matter, and much greater efforts than my own have gone into explaining the reality of these events if you wish to explore further. [^4]: It is extremely important to note not all Hindus. Much of the resistance from this are Hindus themselves who realise their traditions and cultural identity are being hijacked by extremist elements. [^5]: Technically, this is known as a “Monopsony” (a single buyer) as opposed to a monopoly (a single seller). [^6]: **Link: [War Communism | Facts & Definition | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/event/War-Communism)** [^7]: In reality a black market is a free-market, only called “black” because it trades goods and services outlawed by the state. [^8]: **Link: [Hanging Order (ibiblio.org)](https://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/ad2kulak.html)** [^9]: **Link: [War_Communism To NEP: The_Road_from_Serfdom.pdf (mises.org)](https://cdn.mises.org/5_1_5_0.pdf)** [^10]: **Link: [Lenin's New Economic Policy: What it was and how it Changed the Soviet Union - Inquiries Journal](http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1670/lenins-new-economic-policy-what-it-was-and-how-it-changed-the-soviet-union)** The above article reports a stance that if Lenin had more time, he could have built up a stronger private sector through the NEP and then gradually transitioned into State-level communism. Azadism views this as a ridiculous excuse since central planning, in general, is fundamentally flawed. It is the wrong direction, no matter how long it takes to get there. [^11]: China also implemented these during their experiments with communism (which led to mass famine and death). Even India, post-independence, adopted these, and notably, Indira Gandhi during her reign nationalised banks and introduced the “Green Revolution”. The devastating effects of such policies can be felt even today. Different formulas have since been used to centrally plan the economy to varying degrees. [^12]: **Link: [collectivization | Definition & Facts | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivization)** [^13]: **Link: [Holodomor survivor tells his story - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cef_3sfMIGY)** **Link: [Jordan Peterson on the Holodomor in Ukraine - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGmdZR_Ib7A)** **Link: [The Holocaust The New York Times Ignored - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqnfmCu6fUk)** [^14]: **Link: [The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder | The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder)** [^15]: **Link: [UCLA demographer produces best estimate yet of Cambodia’s death toll under Pol Pot | UCLA](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-demographer-produces-best-estimate-yet-of-cambodias-death-toll-under-pol-pot)** [^16]: **Link: [HRNK_HiddenGulag2_Web_5-18.pdf](https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/HRNK_HiddenGulag2_Web_5-18.pdf)** [^17]: **Link: [Satnami's - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.](https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Satnami's)** **Link: [The peasant rebels of the Satnami Rebellion (downtoearth.org.in)](https://www.downtoearth.org.in/reviews/the-peasant-rebels-of-the-satnami-rebellion-67044)** **Link: [SATNAMIS OR SADHS: CHANGING IDENTITY OF THE SATNAMIS OF NARNAUL on JSTOR](https://www.jstor.org/stable/44148127?item_view=read_online&refreqid=excelsior:27c87d70d87c9a792fcdc52a194e6206)** [^18]: **Link: [Do not remain in my presence without Shastar - Guru Gobind Singh Ji (manglacharan.com)](https://manglacharan.com/1751+Gurbilas+Patshahi+Dasvi/Importance+of+Shastar)** [^19]: **Link: [Shri Akal Takhat - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.](https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Shri_Akal_Takhat)** [^20]: There are multiple variations of this quote as it seems it has likely been passed down as oral tradition rather than in writing. It has been attributed to a Sakhi of when Guru Ji arrived near Ambala: **Link: [Gurdwara Gobind Pura - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.](https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurdwara_Gobind_Pura)** *SikhRi* also have good article expanding on the motif of the hawk in Sikhi: **Link: [Baj: The Hawk and The Sikhs | Harinder Singh | SikhRI Articles](https://sikhri.org/articles/baj-the-hawk-and-the-sikhs)** [^21]: **Link: [A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws | Mises Wire](https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws)** [^22]: **Link: [FACT CHECK: Did the NRA Support a 1967 'Open Carry' Ban in California? (snopes.com)](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/)** Hypocrisy is rampant amongst conservative organisations like these, where they may outwardly tout freedom and liberty, however are willing to sacrifice it to meet their own racist agendas. Again, just like corporate lobbying groups like ALEC, this highlights the absurdity of allowing groups like these to lobby government and draft policy. [^23]: **Link: [Kashi House Publishing - In the Masters Presence: The Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib](https://www.kashihouse.com/books/in-the-masters-presence-the-sikhs-of-hazoor-sahib-vol-1)** **Link: [ਸ੍ਰੀਖੜਗਕੇਤੁ on Twitter:](https://twitter.com/kharagket/status/1209573514526810113?s=21)** [^24]: **Link: [Jhatka Maryada | Jhatka Maryada](http://jhatkamaryada.com/)** This is an invaluable resource for knowledge about this topic. They have included many references from Bani and Ithiaas, completely dismantling the arguments present amongst Sikhs today claiming the Gurus were pro-vegetarian. The reality is that diet has little impact on spirituality, and the Khalsa in particular were actually encouraged to hunt and eat meat. Despite this, even the concept of Jhakta is not in itself that big of an issue. The reason why that whole topic is important is that it acts as a gateway to expanding the view on what Sikhi actually is, and the nuance it contains. It isn’t merely a system of blind rituals and by learning the realities of both Bani and Ithiaas, a more comprehensive view of what Sikhi is can be established. [^25]: **Link: [Budha Dal Misl Nehkalank » 8) Baba Prehlad Singh Ji](https://gb.budhadal.org/baba-prehlad-singh-ji/)** [^26]: Giani Ji is amongst the most well-versed scholars of Sikhi in the Panth, learning directly from Jathedar Baba Santa Singh when they were alive. Alongside him, Giani Inderjit Singh Raqbe wale and Giani Gurwinder Singh Nangli are also worth mentioning as great influences to the author for their Katha and Vichaar on Sikhi and Ithiaas in Punjabi. [^27]: Weapons are a broad definition, weapons is anything used as a tool towards defending oneself or others. This doesn’t always mean guns and can refer to other means also. For example, Auranga was killed by the Zafarnamah, a weapon in its own right. [^28]: Shastar Naam Mala is perhaps the only text of its kind in the sense that every line is a praise to different forms of the weapon. Jvala Singh from Manglacharan has a good breakdown of the poetic structure of this composition too, showing the depth of the composition: **Link: [Layered Meanings in Guru Gobind Singh’s Shastar Naam Mala (manglacharan.com)](https://www.manglacharan.com/post/layered-meanings-in-guru-gobind-singh-s-shastar-naam-mala)** [^29]: *Sikh Armory* on Instagram are good example of Sikhs taking this seriously: **Link: [Sikh Armory (@sikharmory) • Instagram photos and videos](https://www.instagram.com/sikharmory/?hl=en)** [^30]: It is worth noting, however, that Athens was originally a Monarchy. The monarchs were eventually then deposed and replaced with an oligarchical system of “Archons”. Solon is also worthy of note, as an enlightened ruler who paved the way for democracy to later develop. **Link: [How Athenian Democracy Was Born - Ancient Greece DOCUMENTARY - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amu6zhlCJO0)** [^31]: Oxford Definition: **Demagoguery** _noun_ “Political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.” [^32]: **Link: [Gorgias, by Plato (gutenberg.org)](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm)** [^33]: **Link: [Plato and Socrates warned about populist governments using fear to turn democracies into tyrannies (scroll.in)](https://scroll.in/article/943564/does-not-tyranny-spring-from-democracy-how-platos-380-bc-philosophy-is-truer-than-ever-today)** [^34]: **Link: [Socrates: “I know that I know nothing” | Reason and Meaning](https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/)** Many of the reasons mentioned here are precisely why Azadism is so averse to central planning. Nobody really knows anything, and they for sure do not know how to best manage the lives of others they claim to represent — let alone their economic behaviour! Azadism has the “Socratic humility” to admit that it does not know how to govern your life better than yourself and those around you. This is why it aims to devolve power to the people themselves instead. No central planner is justified to make decisions on your behalf without consent. [^35]: Jordan Peterson has a lot of content related to the topic of hierarchies if you want to look into them. [^36]: Again, the Sakhi of the 40 Mukte prove this. [^37]: **Link: [America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy | The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy)** [^38]: **Link: [Adam Smith on Slavery | Adam Smith Works](https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/adam-smith-on-slavery)** [^39]: **Link: [Prof. Antony Davies: Why Government Fails, Explained - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxmXeLEcs9s)** This excellent lecture by Anthony Davies completely breaks down the depth of the problem with current political systems. It is crazy to think how this is allowed to persist. [^40]: All the more reason as to why the Khalsa needs to be at the forefront of this revolution in thinking. Not just copying broken systems of the past and giving it a new paint job to make it “Sikhi themed” - e.g. god forbid, a _Sikh Soviet Union._ [^41]: **Link: [Joscha Bach: Nature of Reality, Dreams, and Consciousness | Lex Fridman Podcast #212 - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIpUf-Vy2JA&list=FLvvK7-jiFYuwqHye866xRVA&index=5)** The above is an interview with Joscha Bach who is cognitive scientist, AI researcher and philosopher. I resonated with much of his explanations as I found them related to the assessments of reality shared through Dharmic traditions (of which Sikhi is one). The whole interview is an interesting and fun observation in how the same reality described by the Gurus and other great Mahapurakh through a Dharmic lexicon of terminology can be also be described in “computer-sciencey” terminology by modern philosophers and scientists today. It’s also interesting watching the west adopt terms from fields like computer science since everyday language was not designed to explore the depth of Paramatma. After a point even this may fail and it should be the Khalsa (and Dharmic traditons in general) there to help fill in the gaps. But even then this only extends the inevitable. After a while all language fails and only experience of that one existenceness is appropriate. The words are just stepping stones to help us to the other side. [^42]: The ultimate culmination of spiritual practice — *enlightenment* itself. [^43]: It must be noted that lies that deserves a punishment are only those ones that causes material harm as to be determined in court of law. For example a company lying about the safety of their products or employer lying about how much salary they would pay. Lies of lesser weight would be hard to determine if they have no effect, and it is unreasonable to shut down freedom of speech over certain things. If someone says something that is disagreeable but causes no material harm (hurt feelings do not count) then how can we distinguish between an opinion and a lie? Therefore, only those lies are punishable that can be provably shown to break the NAP. Additionally, lying in general is a form of self-sabotage. Once the people inevitably find out, then all trust is lost and any market interactions with the liar are likely to cease anyway. Only in systems such as the ones currently present in politics actually reward and prop up liars. [^44]: In fact, much of this effort was inspired by Bhai Jugraj Singh themselves. They not only delved into the basics of Sikh philosophy but produced many videos and lectures on political elements and the sort of directions the Khalsa should take in the 21st century. [^45]: Danish researcher and Sikh scholar Satnam Singh mentions this insight in an incredible lecture he gave, available here: **Link: [Crushing pride through the Japji Sahib by Satnam Singh, University of Warwick - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF1dXGdqTWc)** [^46]: However, there is apparently a clause that stipulates that Muslims should follow the laws of the land in non-Muslim nations. If so, adhering to the NAP should not be a problem for them under an Azadist system. [^47]: One of the reasons why I say this is because in Guru Gobind Singh’s composition *Ugardanti*, he makes mention of the Khalsa being the *Tisarpanth* (third way), distinct from both Hinduism and Islam. However, compared with Guru Nanak’s statement of there being “no Hindu and no Muslim”, to me, I interpret both Sikhi and the Khalsa as distinct (although related). Not all Sikhs are Khalsa, but all Khalsa are fundamentally Sikh. Sikhi is therefore a more broad, spiritual identity that transcends religion, whereas the Khalsa is more grounded in religious sentiment. As stated in the main body, it is just one particular way of practising Sikhi as sanctioned by the Guru themselves, and elevated to the status of Guruship too. In fact, I even consider the Khalsa (ideally) more organised than a religion and instead better classified as a corporation or company (or companies, when the Modern Misl System kicks in). [^48]: But even then, some Singh’s are Niyare and in complete Masti. They give no mind to what is permitted by the State or not, nor would they be worried about punishment either. That doesn’t mean they won’t be punished, it just means that the Nihang Singh probably wouldn’t care and do it anyway. But to maintain punishment for those things and still recognise it as a crime is crucial for the general law and order in a society. Hopefully, though many of these type of Singhs would be in a Misl anyway under the watch of a Jathedar/Misldar and bound to a set of Rehits. This then allows this energy to be channelled against real enemies of liberty instead.