#Ranjit-Singh | [Instagram: @ranjitsingh.ma](https://www.instagram.com/ranjitsingh.ma/) | [Substack: @ranjitsinghma](https://substack.com/@ranjitsinghma) | <br> <br> ## Prem Sumarag & Azadist Manifesto Prem Sumarag is an early manuscript outlining a code of conduct for Sikhs. It covers a wide range of things from birth rituals, marriage customs to methods of doing Simran. However, it is particularly unique since it is also touches upon the topics of statecraft and governance. It therefore presents a set of recommendations on how to manage society as a whole, the economy, governance style etc. Although the authorship is contested, it nevertheless echoes a tradition that stemmed from the Darbars of Guru Gobind Singh where topics such as statecraft would have been gathered and studied intensively. Initially, it may seem like Azadism is competing with the sort of monarchy system talked about in Prem Sumarag. There are definitely parts I agree with as well as parts I disagree with. On the surface it does seem like we are both attempting to do the same thing: applying Sikhi to analyse and recommend models for governance. Prem Sumarag was primarily focused on the common monarchist system prevalent at the time and how to reform/implement one based on its interpretation of Sikhi. Azadism similarly analyses more modern forms such as republics, democracies and dictatorships. Although, I am heavily critical of these current systems (as well as monarchies), Azadism can still be used to help reform them. However, Azadism aims to also learn from the pitfalls of such systems and ultimately recommends a modernised Misl system as an alternative. However, that being said, I’ve designed Azadism in a way where it isn’t so much a system in of itself than it is a framework for many sub-systems to form within. Carry on reading, and I’ll come back to this point later in the post and talk about how Prem Sumarag fits into this. ## Miri Piri People often forget that Gurus were founders of many cities and townships. Kartarpur, Ramdaspur (later known as Amritsar), Anandpur etc were all originally established by the various Gurus. However, this sort of city-building culture has not seemed to live on amongst the Sikhs today. It understandable as to why due to modern regulations, overarching central state interference and the artificially high capital costs associated with such things these days - although it is not impossible. ## Rekindle The Legacy Under an Azadist system, many of these barriers preventing people from setting up their own townsteads or even city-states would be removed. People would be free to buy land and set up their own townships or cities with its own laws and government structure, all within the confines of the property they own. There wouldn’t be a central government that dictates what can and can’t be built on land that people own. Central state managed urban planning boards would be done away with and replaced by the market - the people directly! How does this work? Potential developers would need to form a plan on how to build a system in which people would like to migrate to, work in and stay there. However, If the developers plan is faulty and can’t produce something sustainable then no one would stay or even move there in the first place. Setting up a new community is just like setting up a business. You have to produce something of value that people are willing to trade for. In terms of this, that means the developer must provide a good standard of living, quality of life, security, infrastructure, employment opportunity, etc. In return, the people would pay rent or purchase property from them which raises revenue. Profit here would indicate “customer satisfaction”. If you are using up too many resources relative to actual demand (more outgoings than income), then you will generate losses, which is the market’s way of saying you should stop, it’s not working. What we would then see is an industry of entrepreneurs (of which I hope Sikhs take a lead on) who acquire some land and develop property to rent out to potential tenants, or perhaps even sell it to them for a profit. However, the key to success here will be to develop communities that offer high quality, security, and actually meeting the people’s needs. If they can’t, then other “system-builders” will outcompete them. As they expand, they can offer more services, establish greater trade networks and grant more opportunities. In time they would develop into whole cities. However, expansion to that level isn’t absolutely necessary either and you could have communities devoted to a particular focus like education, manufacturing a particular product or even somewhere to relax. You may have noticed, much of this already happens today! There are many private gated communities with their own sets of rules and exclusive memberships. You also have retirement villages designed for pensioners, university towns with large campuses. Even “Disney Land” is an example of this. Osho set up Rajneeshpuram in the US with its own schools and police force! A kind of “state within a state”. It didn't end well because of the central state interfering, but also leadership’s decisions, and all the other kartootan that happened, but that's the point! Each style of govt is not going to work, and we need to have the freedom to experiment and fail. That’s how we learn. Just like businesses in a free market, there is a sense of natural selection at play, that filters out the undesirable systems. Profit is a measure of consumer satisfaction. So similarly a new “sub-state” will have it's success determined by whether it can use its resources efficiently (income outweigh the costs) whilst simultaneously balancing consumer satisfaction in the form of the quality of life metrics etc mentioned previously. But the true power here is the ability to experiment and offer governance styles for different types of demand. With restaurants we have so many different varieties catering for different diets, cultures, geographies etc. There are so many options it can be difficult to decide! You even have the freedom to set up your own option! But with central governments of today we are forced into accepting whatever system those in power dictate. Where’s the choice? Perhaps some people want to live in a monarchy, whereas others prefer democracy. However, you are condemned to accept whatever the system of the region you were born in. You could move to different nations, but there is hardly much variety out there, and why should you have to move if you own the property you live in? Why should you have to even move that far? Why not just move to another city rather than whole countries? There is no contract you have signed either to accept your subordination. This is what Azadism fixes. Many independent “sub-states” would be co-existing, competing and cooperating with each other; each experimenting with their own unique governance styles. If you are a Marxist Communist, then you can band together and easily start your own commune. If you are Capitalist, then raise capital and start your own city adhering to free-market principles. Let’s see which does better! Again, a city or community fundamentally is a business. You must raise income to outweigh the costs. Same way you must eat more than the calories you burn if you want to grow (or at least break even!). The only way to do that now is by offering a system that people are attracted towards and willing to participate in. All these debates about which system of government is better can be settled by actually implementing and experimenting. The reality is though, no one system is good for everyone. Each has their own preferences and so there doesn’t have to be one “winner.” Just like restaurants, you can have many choices, and move when you want a taste of something different. In this way, Azadism is not just a system, but a system enabler. And this is where Granths like Prem Sumarag come in. Those who want to take inspiration from it and use it as a manual to govern their own state would be free to try it! This is what I expect the original Misl system and the early Sikh Raaje would have done to help them inform how to govern their domains, alongside many other works such those of Chankya Neeti, Persian texts and more. It is undeniable that Maharaha Ranjit Singh began to adopt European / Napoleonic styles of military organisation for instance too. ## Azadist Misl System Additionally, In the long-run their wouldn’t be a central government under Azadism in which to stop people from living how they want to. The Azadist Misl system are not just another bunch of bureaucrats. They are primarily a set of many independent security forces upholding the underlying law. This law is based on something called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which is the right for any individual to live however they want provided it does not impede the right for others to do the same. So, in relation to this example, if someone bought some land and built something on it that releases deadly toxins that effects non-consenting third parties nearby, then they would have broken the NAP. The Misls would then be justified to move in and put a stop to this. The Misls cater for clients the same way businesses do today for customers. Private citizens can direct their dasvandh to a Misl (or multiple) of their choice. Similarly how a single household may have multiple subscriptions to different services, a family could have 5 or more different Misls covering it if they so desired. So then who builds and maintains the communities? The people do, and they can decide for themselves the style in which they wish organise (or not, can live on your own if you want to in the woods somewhere like a yogi). But upholding the NAP is the primary function of the Misls. Any other laws sit on top of this base layer and are localised to each community and its members only. For instance, a charismatic Muslim wanting to adhere to the Sharia could buy some land and set up his own society with a city and courts. But the Sharia would only apply to the domain of his purchased property, similar to how a businesses often have a corporate policy (dress code, values etc). Others who voluntarily want to live under that can then apply and upon approval by the owner of that land they would be made to sign a contract accepting the terms. If they break any of the “Sharia city” laws (and as a member of that city existing on the private property of the owner/founder), they would have to suffer the punishment agreed to in their contact. The only way out of this then is to then remit their contract and any of the benefits they received as part of that agreement (which may include the right to stay in that city). This rescission would also place them under the Khalsa Misl’s protection so that they are still assured their NAP based rights (unless the Sharia law they broke also breached the NAP). They would be subsequently evicted from the private property of the owner to ensure his right to live under the NAP isn’t infringed upon also. The same thing applies to a completely democratic socialist community who may not have a single founder and instead purchased the property as a collective. Each person perhaps may have an equal share and they vote on the laws of their specific arrangement, so long as all are participating voluntarily and are happy to have their individual will triumphed over by the group. I personally don’t think these will ever get very large, or last too long, but this is the beauty of it. You can prove me wrong! Do you and all your socialist buddies think you can create a better system than capitalism? Then get together, pool your funds and try it! You could have socialised medicine and education etc as well. The only restriction is that you are not allowed to take funds from anyone who does not consent. If they are not living within the property (land) you bought and has not signed a contract to agree to pay your rents, then you can not touch them. Unlike today’s governments, now you have to rely on results in terms of quality of life and efficiency, not force (e.g. taxes - i.e state mandated theft), to get what you want. Hence, if your a socialist, monarchist or whatever, you should support Azadism since it is giving you the ability to try your chosen system! ## Conquest Without Conquest Conquering territory through force which is owned by others is strictly a forbidden activity under Azadism. It breaks the aforementioned Non-Aggression Principle and it is something that even despite great Singhs of the past doing it, I personally believe it is fundamentally immoral as per Sikhi. The only exception is when the Singhs took from the state, since the government were themselves thieves who exploited and forcibly took the land in the first place. Giving the land back to the people (aka establishing a system of private property rights) is the solution here, not keeping hold of it and forming your own centralised state and carrying on the same cycle of trying to impose one singular system forcibly on others. This cycle is the difference between revolution and liberation. The only way a conquest is justified is if you take lands from a state and give it to the people directly so they can live according to their own wishes within the confines of what they own or acquire through trade. Which is what Azadism is aiming to enable. How would land be acquired then in an Azadist system? Similar to how our Gurus did it. They purchased it, Sangat donated it or they were gifted it by previous owners upon being impressed by the Sikhi they taught and lived by. For most people, I would expect buying the land to be the most common avenue, especially if the land and property already have residents. You would need to buy it off them. This is what the British, Jinnah and Nehru should have done in 1947 too. But they did the classic authoritarian thing of splitting up land that they themselves didn’t own and forced people into systems and to accept constitutions they had no say in, simply because of which side of the arbitrary lines that were drawn they lived on. How would it be different if Azadism was implemented? The British would have been kicked out and relinquish any claim to territory, and both Nehru and Jinnah would have to go door to door selling their ideas by communicating their plan and propositions for statecraft. They would have to sign people up as clients through contracts and buy the properties they wished to govern. Which would inevitably mean that you wouldn’t have got such a large Pakistan and Hindustan, but likely millions of sub-systems or “stans” each with their own flavour of governance. There would be millions of Nehrus and Jinnahs, thereby devaluing the spread of each individuals influence over the lives of others. ## Sikh System Builders Instead of these elite politicians with their campaigns to acquire ownership of tax-payers money (extorted funds), you would instead have entrepreneurs (that anyone can be) who would pitch their systems and seek funding, just like startups do today. You don’t have to do it all alone either. Make a plan, pitch it to investors and acquire the land to produce a proof of concept. In the Azadist view, this is far more ethical way to establish many city states, catering to the peoples demands. Now this post have focused on the long-term vision of an Azadist system as it evolves from a competitor to ideologies like communism, to transcend them and become a sandbox in which communists could co-exist peacefully alongside many other ideologies of today. We would also see the emergence of new ideologies and experiments with old methods (like that of Prem Sumarag) under the innovative environment and from the freedom of experimentation Azadism will facilitate. But we, Sikhs especially, don’t have to wait till then. This stuff is already happening. I already mentioned some limited examples earlier in the post, but now we are seeing the rise of special economic zones (SEZs) and projects like smart cities all around the world. We should strive to emulate the city-building actvities of our own Guru that we have forgotten all about! It is harder today given that world isn’t yet as Azadist as it should be and land is so much harder to obtain let alone build cities upon, but it’s not impossible. Everything has price, and it depends on the return on investment you can deliver. But at the very least, become an Azadist and adopt the attitude required to make this a reality once again amongst the Guru Khalsa Panth.