‘Shahajiyas’.Hindus claimed Lalon as their own as did Muslims. Both communities wanted to communalise him,after his name became a household word. Communalisation of his birth is a possibility he anticipatedin his life time and that is the reason he never revealed his identity. His followers were humblepeople and their protests went unheard because of intense communal claims by two religiouscommunities. Hindus said he was a Kayastha, adopted by a Muslim guru, and Muslims said he was aMuslim by birth. Yet Lalon never revealed his guru. He just continued to live with Matijan and Malam,who adopted him as their son and later as their Guru, throughout his life. He was not very widelyknown during his life time, although he was noted by many eminent writers and intellectuals of histime, such as Rabindranath Tagore.However, Lalon did not search contact with the middle and upper class. He did not even want tocome near Rabindranath Tagore, because Tagore came from a Zamindar family. When Tagoreinvited him, he did not go; both lived around the same time in Bengal. Another famous man of thattime was Ramakrishna.But Lalon could never become like Ramkrishna, charming the elites of Kolkata. All his life he livedat the outskirts of Kushtia.Lalon was against all forms of socio-economic hierarchy, caste, class, and gender and any forms of politics of identity based on race, nationality, etc. He did not believe in divisions according to jat(caste), path (hierarchies by which who can accept food and water from whom), class, patriarchy,religion and nation.Lalon was not a nationalist, despite the fact the anti-colonial nationalist movement was fomentingin the subcontinent. It does not imply that he is not against colonial oppression, of course he was; hewas against all forms of oppression. However, when the oppressed constitutes an identity as anecessary tool to encounter the oppressor, the identity overtakes the universality of human beings.Perhaps he saw the danger in identity politics decaying into fetish. It is a hindrance to resolvehuman conflicts and go beyond the difference to celebrate the unity of the human beings.When he was found by Malam and Matijan, Lalon was already a grown up boy and it is obviousthat he knew about his family, his village and his community. Nevertheless, he never revealed hisfamily background or the so called ‘identity’. This act of non-disclosure of his origin that Lalonmaintained all of his life is highly political. Living in a society violently divided by caste, hierarchyand communal division, Lalon knew very well that the so-called natural origins or birth historiesalways create social meaning and produce politics of identities. He was vehemently opposed tocaste, all forms of social and economic hierarchies, communal identities or all forms of socialdifference that might carry slightest potential to breed political division in the society. No wonder, hewrote many songs against caste, family status and hierarchy. He adopted the name ‘Lalon’, acurious choice – it could be a name belonging to any community and could also be a name of awoman.Lalon is brilliant in raising very fundamental issues relating to woman-man relationships playing onthe margin between biological and the social construction of this relation. The famous song ‘mayerebhajile hoy tar baper thikana’ is based on a story known in rural Bengal. Parvati, one of the greatHindu Mother-Goddesses, the wife of Mohadeva or Shiva, was once asked by her husband about theorigin of the world. ‘Is it from the masculine or the feminine principle?’ Mohadeva asked Parvati.Parvati thought for a while, but decided consciously not to reply, she went into ‘silence’. Why?Because if she said the world originated from women, implying her, she will be a sinner for being abad wife, since patriarchal rules were dominant. On the other hand, if she said it is from themasculine principle, implying Shiva, she will become a liar. So her ‘silence’ became her words, or herwords are constructed by her silence. Silence is the the feminine punctuation in the masculinediscourse and it must be rewritten as a methodology known in Lalon’s philosophy as the ‘nigambichar’. It is the task of the sadhus or the saints to read the ‘silence’ and break the dominantstructure of the existing discourse.Most importantly, Lalon raised the difficult methodological question of addressing the biologicaldifference between men and women and the social meaning they produce in different socialcontexts constituting various forms of patriarchal hierarchies between women and men. The famoussong, ‘mayere bhajile hoy tar baper thikana’ is a brilliant example. The meaning of the Father isrevealed only through the naming the name of the Mother and that is indeed the task of the realwisdom, he claimed. The philosophical twist of the Bengali word ‘bhajana’ is almost impossible totranslate into other languages. ‘Mayere bhajile’ literally means ‘worshipping mothers’ but Lalon wasmeaning completely opposite of deifying the women as Devi, but inviting intellectual and meditativeengagement to reveal the meaning of being Mother (not motherhood). Mother signifies the origin of all beings both as the ceaseless process (Prakriti), as well as the subject of the process. Father orShiva is not an independent entity outside Mother, or Parvati, but integral to the notion of Mother.So, one knows Father only by knowing the Mother.He did not use the concept nari (woman), but always referred to “mother-father“ dialectics. ‘If youwant to know the father you have to worship mother’ – an unconditional submission to the feminineprinciple is demanded by his philosophy and the lifestyle.