Unifying Society by Removing Poverty

In order to establish unity and welfare, the common points of affinity must be found in 3 spheres:

1. Socio-economic sphere
2. Mental-sentimental sphere
3. Spirituo-sentimental sphere

To unify society, we must first remove social and economic disparities.

In a society where one person wallows in luxury while another gradually starves to death, the bondage of friendship is inconceivable.

Similarly, if there is hatred in the social sphere, there can be no atmosphere of fraternity.

• For example, if an upper caste person hates a low caste person.

Those who have wealth may try to buy others to serve their purposes.

• But one cannot have unity with a slave.

To experience the warmth of another’s heart, one will have to give up the false sentiments of man-made differences.

For that, we must first wage a ceaseless fight against poverty.

Poverty is a common enemy of all the Indians.

When a severe blow is dealt against the common enemy, all the interested parties will become united out of their own selfish motivations. This campaign against poverty will have to be carried on step by step.

The first step is to arouse an anti-exploitation sentiment.

Every person should be convinced that the wealth of the world is the common patrimony of all.

• To utilize that wealth is the birthright of everyone.
• No interference in that birthright will be permissible.

Each person should be guaranteed the minimum necessities of life by providing everyone with sufficient purchasing capacity.

It is not enough to provide the minimum necessities of life. Simultaneously, the country’s wealth should also be increased.

If sufficient wealth is not generated to meet the growing demands of the people, seeds of discontent will settle in their minds.

So the increase in population should also be accompanied by an increase in the generation of national wealth. Unfortunately, the so-called leaders of modern India do not pay attention to this.

Through various development programmes, the shortage of national wealth can be removed to a great extent.

Take the case of the Indian province of Orissa.

Agriculture, particularly summer crops, is still totally dependent on monsoons. Had artificial irrigation been introduced, Orissa could have achieved a three-fold increase in yields.

Orissa today provides food to only 15 million people. Had agriculture been properly developed, Orissa could be supplying food to 40 million people.

Orissa is also very rich in mineral resources such as coal, chromium, bauxite, manganese, etc. The present Indian leaders export those mineral resources overseas.

If those raw materials were utilized for indigenous industrial production, then 4 big steel plants can easily be put into operation. This would substantially raise per capita income.

But the leaders, instead of paying attention to those things, have been framing five-year plans whimsically.

Ultimately, these plans neither remove the economic disparities nor increase the collective wealth. To achieve these twin ends, the present economic system is to be thoroughly overhauled.

At the very outset, to facilitate socio-economic development, the country should be divided into socio-economic zones.

If state boundaries are demarcated on the basis of political and linguistic considerations, then socio-economic plans can never be properly drafted. Various economic problems would not be given due attention.

That is why economic zones are indispensable for expediting economic progress.

At the moment, there are various economic units with different economically problematic areas within the same political zone.

For instance, in Chottanagpur hills of Bihar, there is an acute problem of irrigation. Whereas in the plains of North Bihar, there is a problem of drainage of water.

In the same way, Royal-Sima, Shrii Kákulam and Felangana areas have been annexed to the same political province – Andhra – although their economic problems are different.

That is why, considering the economic problems, in the interest of those people different socio-economic zones should be created.

It may be that converting these different political units into a single economic zone right now, if implemented for administrative purposes, may lead to complications. So one economic zone may be divided into two political units (even one if necessary).

There can be more than one economic zone in a political unit. The formation of linguistic states is meaningless: national unity can never be achieved through the creation of political linguistic states. To think that if the exploiters, capitalists, industrial proprietors and labourers speak one language, then unity among them will be maintained, is sheer foolishness.