Anarchy

Osho, the question will be complete if I add one more doubt: if the conception of such negative training for the individual and for society is presented as an art and as a line of practice, will it not lead to anarchy?

The lawmaker is a sadist. He gives value to law. He says, “If you want to marry, you will have to live together your whole life!” He imposes a condition. And living together a whole life can be so sorrowful that under that sorrow and burden the little joy of marriage and togetherness is crushed under a stone—but that doesn’t matter to him. He says, “Only if you will live together for life can you marry! Otherwise you cannot marry.” If you want to remain free, you cannot marry—so you will be saved from the possibility of love. And if you want to love, you must marry. That sadist—my own understanding is that all lawmakers are sadists. Whether it is Manu or anyone else, all are sadists. They devise every way to torment. But they hide their tormenting in such a way that it appears they are undertaking great measures…

Beloved master, anarchy simply means absence of authority -- which is beautiful. But in common language it has the meaning of absence of discipline. Why that confusion? Could you speak about discipline, especially its relation to rebellion?

The reality is that in India, Punjabis are the only people.... They use turbans; that is part of their religion. The Sikh has to use it, otherwise he is not a Sikh. And they are the most unintelligent people in the whole country. The Bengalis are the people who don't use any hats, any caps, and they are the most intelligent people in the country. Not a single Punjabi has risen to world eminence for his intelligence. They have not achieved Nobel Prizes. But Bengalis have become world famous. They have achieved the Nobel Prize for science, the Nobel Prize for literature, and all other kinds of awards. I told the principal, "What this proves is that the turbans are preventing the intelligence of the poor Sikhs. The Bengalis, without any caps, any turbans, any hats, seem to have fresher minds, are more intelligent. They have created the best literature…

Osho, does Kropotkin’s anarchism contain some element of communism?

No. Kropotkin and the others have nothing to do with communism; in fact, they are its enemies. Because, in their view, communism cannot come without state power. To bring communism you need the apparatus of the state, a dictatorship—only then can you impose it. And they do not accept that any apparatus is needed. Hence there was opposition between them and communism. Anarchists and communists have been enemies; there is no common ground between them. Communism says that one day the state, developing further and further, will wither away. But anarchists say: the more the state develops, the stronger it becomes—how is it going to wither away? My position is very different. For me it is not very important whether there is a state or not, whether there is an external order or not. Man should become such that he can remain orderly even within disorder. Man should be like…

Osho, could you say something about what is going on in Delhi?

I’ll tell a little story. When Lanka’s former ruler Ravana was on his deathbed, Rama sent Lakshman to learn statecraft from him—saying, “Son, we may have won, but we have no experience of running the administration here; go and ask him how to run things.” Lakshman went there and said to Ravana, “You are dying now—tell us how to govern here.” Ravana said, “Half the politics I handled, half Kumbhakarna did. Had you gotten in touch with Kumbhakarna as well?” Lakshman said, “Yes—he said: eat to your heart’s content and then sprawl on the sofa with your eyes closed. This is the best method.” “Tell me,” Ravana asked, “are you going to unleash dictatorship, or will you run things by democracy? Which method will be suitable?” “What will go down well with the people?” “Nothing,” said Ravana. “When you impose dictatorship, the people will yearn for democracy; and when you…