James Tooley : The Beautiful Tree : The Law of Public Education and the Indian system

I came across the latest book by James Tooley called the “Beautiful Tree” wherein Tooley advocates private participation in public education . Tooley claims that he was inspired by the book by the same name , by another famous Indian , the Gandhian , Dharmapal .

In chapter 11 he discusses the history of the present education system in India . This is the crux of his book and a very interesting essay in itself :

Tooley starts by quoting Dharmapal’s quotation from Gandhiji , where Gandhiji came down heavily upon the Government schools and said that universal education was not possible in the said method and said that the only way possible for universal education in India was through the “old model” of the village schools and school master .

In a very lengthy chapter he discusses as to how the British carried out a survey of schools in the 19^th Century and were surprised to find that instead of having very little education , India had a large number of schools and very large parts of the Indian population was being educated in the said schools and these schools catered to all sections of the society . The British were so surprised that they undertook a study of the funding of these schools and found out to their surprise that the funding was completely private . He says however the said statistics were criticized by some other Britishers and he names Phillp Hartog and William Willberforce who thought that the quality of these schools were very low since they were responsible for the Indians being “deeply sunk , and by their religious superstitions fast bound , in the lowest depth of moral and social wretchedness” . Tooley says that Karl Marx believed that the biggest tool of history was the English education of India . As for payment the British believed that the schools were bad because the teachers were badly paid and there was no adequate” school houses” , thereby leading to laying down of specific regulations as to what constitutes schools and the guidelines that it may have to follow . The British acknowledged clearly that the courses in the schools were more practical applicable than even the schools in Scotland and even recommended the use of the methodology in England itself . The method was brought into Britain under the name of the Madras Method , wherein senior students were given responsibility to educate junior students and was a stupendous success . He says that Dharmapal mentioned the man who took the system to England in his book, a certain Dr.Andrew Bell . He said the British in response tried to reform the indigenous schools by getting some teachers educated in formalized westernized education and setting up westernized schools and failed . He says that the reasons for the failure were (i) there were never adequate people interested to teach in village schools from outside the village (ii) it was apparent that in the new schools of the British ,closeness to the bosses mattered and not teaching capability , (iii) the new schools deliberately contrary to the intention of the scheme were only concentrating on the education of Brahmins and the elites (iv) there was no adequate supervision of the schools , and (v) the schools were designed for much larger group than the inadequate and inefficient private schools and hence there were very few of them making it very difficult for the students from distant villages from attending them .

Then came Macaulay : who came in initially as President of General Committee of Public Instruction for the British Presidency at Calcuta . He was of the view that the indigenous education system and education itself was worthless and the object of the education in India was to “promote European literature and sciences amongst the natives of India and all funds to be dedicated to English education alone” . He then went on to devise the extensive public education system which exists in India till the present date . This resulted in reducing education amongst the people in general as apparent from even statistics available from that time . Tooley says that evidence of this has parallels from England of the same time which was dominated by private schools and it was that what got most people educated and not public / government schools . He also quotes Gandhi who specifically mentions that the Government School system would not be able to attain universal education in India and advocated a return to the village school master model .

Tooley then calls the modern educationists “Modern Macaulays” who believe what suited the European elites best suited the rest of the world also .He says that this is not only true for India and be examples he illustrates that how it is true for the rest of the world . Tooley ends this chapter be stating “private education” for the poor means championing a return to the cultural roots of the people .

The reason I recommend a reading of this book is not to endorse the ideology or the content what Tooley may be saying though that may well be true , but I find it interesting as it shows how the British used law to destroy the older system of education so as to impose their own and how that system still continues to the present day .

The Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda and the ideology of the Indian State .

This is an article written by me as a Part 2 to the one on Swami Vivekananda and Economics , this being largely on Politics and Swami Vivekananda . Admittedly it does cover the same ground at places , but then , neither the Swami nor the real world treat economics and politics as separate disciplines . This is also a work in progress ,since there are other things which need to be addressed in order that the article becomes comprehensive .....but as of now this is a short preview :

The Importance of Swami Vivekananda for understanding contemporary India

It is not a matter of doubt that Narendra Nath Dutta also more famously known as Swami Vivekananda had a profound effect on the idea of nation building in India . In many ways Swami Vivekananda has given and continues to give direction to those who want to actively be engaged with India and more importantly it’s people . He remains along with Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar one of the most important political philosophers and icons of the country . He predates them both , in both in terms of their work as well their conceptions of the challenges that faced India and continues to face India .His answers are more practical in many ways than both Gandhi and Ambedkar .His views on society , religion , economics and politics as will be apparent from reading his writings have actually shaped India as we see it today .The fact that the religion of India “Hinduism” or Sanatana Dharma or Vedanta as he would like to call it , is what it is today , very different from what it was 100 years back and still survives intact and it’s adherents can still make sense out of the changes is because of Swami Vivekananda who discussed the oncoming changes and made practical and far reaching predictions. As even an ordinary person without great erudition would notice , the society of India today is neither of Gandhi or of Ambedkar , but the mean lies with Vivekananda .

He spoke about using Non Violence as a method against your enemies predating Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj , and as the leading authority on Gandhi today says , Gandhi was deeply influenced by Vivekananda . In his initial days Gandhi even went to meet Vivekananda , but since the Swami was very ill , he could not meet him and came back disappointed .[1] Gandhi also realized that Vivekananda did not endorse his views about an ideal Indian village completely [2]or his ideas about complete opposition of the East and West as he made out in Hind Swaraj . Vivekananda spoke about a synthesis of the best of both worlds and was clearly conscious that technology of the West may indeed benefit the poor of India and for that he was very keen.

Vivekananda preceded Ambedkar in being vocal about caste discrimination and was prescient about it’s remedies as well as the pitfalls which may arise for those who want to remedy it . His discussion on caste discrimination , predate Ambedkar’s on the same issue and their views are almost the same , with the crucial difference that Vivekananda wanted to make the change from within and Ambedkar wanted to make the changes by rejecting the system entirely[3] . Interestingly Gandhi raised the question of Vivekanand and his spiritual guru “Ram Krishna Paramhans” as a breaker of caste in his correspondence with Ambedkar and Ambedkar agreeing to the same and recognizing the fact was of the view that Ram Krishna had not been able to have a deep impact on Hindu society[4] . Interestingly Ambedkar who had extensive knowledge of both contemporaries as well as both Hindu and Brahmin scriptures chose not to utter a word about Swami Vivekananda. Infact till today a large section of the leftist intellectuals of the Dalit Bahujan movement is confused about how to deal with Vivekananda as to whether to accept him or reject him[5] , since in many ways he anticipated their ideology and pointed out the pitfalls of pushing their ideology without recognizing the results of the same .

The importance of Swami Vivekananda in Indian socio-political thought .

Swami Vivekananda is also interestingly a person whose philosophy and reading of the conception of India , Hinduism and the people of India , is very much touched with his experiences in the United States of America and the New World[6] , unlike most of India’s other political philosophers like Mahatma Gandhi whose experience of the west came from the British and or Britain.

Swami Vivekananda is a man in any ways engaged with the ideas which still haunt us today . He is also a person who had traveled extensively across the world , speaking about India . He is possibly the foremost person of his times who confronts the question of caste , religion , minorityism , modernism , economics and politics of India and he brought a refreshing viewpoint to the same . He is articulate and very clear and with his writings and sayings managed to set the agenda which is still with us today as Nationalists.

Vivekananda is a radical traditionalist. His version and interpretation of high religious philosophy was also marked with a very specific political / economic outlook which arose from his concern about the people of his country , or his co-religionists . His vision is still relevant and broadly and startlingly still applicable in India today .

Interestingly his exploration of Hinduism and the condition of the people of India leads him to two broad presumptions , one that religion cannot be given on an empty stomache and two , the poor of India or as he would like to term the “sudra” should be awakened . This has lead to attempts by socialists and communists to appropriate the legacy of Swami Vivekananda . However Vivekananda was clearly and completely against formal rigid equality though he did claim to be a socialist in a very colloquial sense[7] . Vivekananda recognized clearly that for a society to work in the long run , man had to be given the opportunity to excel and make money … and he has memorably and famously equalized the Grihasta making money with an anchorite ( sadhu) praying in his cell [8].

He seems to be the first person to have discovered the link with what is today known in India “ caste is class” theory and also to have seen that such was not a perfect formulation. His vision of combining and reading caste and class together is even by today’s standard extremely radical and innovative.

He antedates Gandhi’s thinking on non violence . He talks about democracy and self rule and the need to be rational in the application of our history and culture . He vehemently opposes the Aryan invasion theory and promotes the cause of the Shudra and the Pariah [9]

.

He is the originator of the word “Dalit”, a word to be used for the pariahs , since it is a direct translation from the word “suppressed” to describe the situation of the “pariahs” of his time.[10]Interestingly he realized as well that the only way to destroy the caste system in India was through “free market”[11].

Vivekananda is unique in that he is neither in thrall of the past , nor is he willing to discard everything from it . Gandhi himself realized that though Vivekananda looked to the past for inspiration he did not want to replicate the past [12].In that way he is the “middle path” between Gandhi and Ambedkar ,and therefore reflective of the true Indian mean in society .

Swami Vivekananda’s reading both on modern and ancient texts is vast and his capability of drawing apt practical lessons from them is unparalleled .

In the present tumultuous times therefore he stands as an inspiration of a very unique philosophy which is not inward looking yet very proud of being what it is . He is the person who puts the markers which comprise the clear boundaries of modern popular Hinduism as well modern Indian nationalism . He also recognizes the economics of his age and the impact on India

Vivekananda and the Ideals of the Indian state

The question here is what sort of an Indian state would Swami Vivekananda have envisaged? It is a difficult to answer since Swami Vivekananda deliberately kept out of politics and consciously so. Yet , we can surmise some of the broad outlines that he would have looked forward to . I no doubt realize that my guess is as good as anyone else’s as to what sort of Constitution would Vivekananda have wanted , but for the sake of consideration I would like to put forward the following :

(i) Vivekananda would have definitely wanted a more equal society , both in economic terms as well as in social terms , that much is clearly apparent from his writings [13]. But as he was wont to say that he was not against inequality per se as it was the nature of things , but he was against “privilege”.[14]

(ii) Vivekananda would not have wanted a state under a planned economy , he was clearly of the view that the duty of a Grihasta was to create and distribute wealth ;

(iii) Vivekananda would have wanted a country in which caste did not exist and indeed saw the future of caste doomed, however he would have been definitely against war in the name of caste consciousness and the annihilation of caste[15].

(iv) Vivekananda would have focused the constitution on the Grihasta and the family and put on them the onus of creating and distributing wealth in the society . He would have perhaps wanted the rich to be more integrated in the development of the society [16].

(v) Vivekananda , would have been a proponent of individual liberty and freedom , yet based on Bharatiya tradition .

(vi) Vivekananda is a democrat and skeptical of the rule of kings.[17]

(vii) Vivekananda would have wanted a strong independent Indian state , a state which used it’s mechanism to help the poor. He would not be against modern technology if it was for the benefit of the poor.[18]

(viii) He would have wanted a strong resurgent India . An India which would enjoy it’s rightful place in the world .

(ix) However he would have wanted a spiritual India and an India which has not forgotten it’s older culture and wisdom .

The Ideology of Swami Vivekananda

In the end if there is an “ideology” of Swami Vivekananda it can be said to be encapsulated by oft quoted following quote which still haunts us today :

““O India! With this mere echoing of others, with this base imitation of others, with this dependence on others this slavish weakness, this vile detestable cruelty — wouldst thou, with these provisions only, scale the highest pinnacle of civilisation and greatness? Wouldst thou attain, by means of thy disgraceful cowardice, that freedom deserved only by the brave and the heroic? O India! Forget not that the ideal of thy womanhood is Sita, Savitri, Damayanti; forget not that the God thou worshippest is the great Ascetic of ascetics, the all-renouncing Shankara, the Lord of Umâ; forget not that thy marriage, thy wealth, thy life are not for sense-pleasure, are not for thy individual personal happiness; forget not that thou art born as a sacrifice to the Mother's altar; forget not that thy social order is but the reflex of the Infinite Universal Motherhood; forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper, are thy flesh and blood, thy brothers. Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that thou art an Indian, and proudly proclaim, "I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother." Say, "The ignorant Indian, the poor and destitute Indian, the Brahmin Indian, the Pariah Indian, is my brother." Thou, too, clad with but a rag round thy loins proudly proclaim at the top of thy voice: "The Indian is my brother, the Indian is my life, India's gods and goddesses are my God. India's society is the cradle of my infancy, the pleasure-garden of my youth, the sacred heaven, the Varanasi of my old age." Say, brother: "The soil of India is my highest heaven, the good of India is my good," and repeat and pray day and night, "O Thou Lord of Gauri, O Thou Mother of the Universe, vouchsafe manliness unto me! O Thou Mother of Strength, take away my weakness, take away my unmanliness, and make me a Man!"[19]

---

[1] Collected Works of Gandhi ; Vol 56 ; page 82 .

[2] Witness Babasaheb Ambedkar’s essay on “Preservation of Social Order” < http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/58.%20Preservation%20of%20Social%20Order.htm > (15.12.09)

[3] Interestingly Swami Vivekananda noticed this problem of philosophers believing that caste was a religious institution rather than a social institution . He said “ The Hindu must not give up his religion, but must keep religion within its proper limits end give freedom to society to grow. All the reformers in India made the serious mistake of holding religion accountable for all the horrors of priestcraft and degeneration and went forth with to pull down the indestructible structure, and what was the result? Failure! Beginning from Buddha down to Ram Mohan Roy, everyone made the mistake of holding caste to be a religious institution and tried to pull down religion and caste all together, and failed. But in spite of all the ravings of the priests, caste is simply a crystallised social institution, which after doing its service is now filling the atmosphere of India with its stench, and it can only be removed by giving back to the people their lost social individuality. Every man born here knows that he is a man. Every man born in India knows that he is a slave of society. Now, freedom is the only condition of growth; take that off, the result is degeneration”; The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 5 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 23

[4] This is part of the famous book called “Anhilation of Caste” by Babasaheb Ambedkar , wherein Mahatma Gandhi in his reply to the first article by Babasaheb Ambedkar titled “Anhilation of Caste” titled “ A vindication of Caste” mentions :

“In his able address, the learned Doctor has over proved his case. Can a religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvailuvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar'saddress ? A religion has to be judged not by it's worst specimens but by the best it might have produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to aspire to, if not to improve upon.”

To which Babasaheb replies in another article

“The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansa etc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have produced. I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite understand what the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough but does it dispose of the matter ? I say it does not. The question still remains—why the worst number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are two conceivable answers to this question : ( 1 ) That the worst by reason of some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal—in fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the contrary. To my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.” < http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm#a01 > (14.12.09)

Interesting to note that in his reply Babasaheb either consciously or unconsciously forgets to mention Swami Vivekananda mentioned by Mahatma Gandhi, though being the great scholar that Babasaheb was it is impossible to believe that he had not read Vivekananda.

[5] Witness the radical anti Hindu Dalit Bahujan scholar Kancha Illiah’s complete incomprehension as to how to deal with Vivekananda and his ideology < http://www.ambedkar.org/News/hl/Interview%20with.htm > ( 6.10.2009)

[6] Swami Vivekananda traveled extensively in the USA and his travels and experiences there fundamentally changed his view of India and the world . He also traveled very extensively all over the world , from France , Britain , Japan , China and Canada amongst various places , and this sharpened his perception about India and the Hindu religion . His travel all over India before and after his travel to the west as an ordinary itinerant monk as well as a famous religious prophet was very extensive . He also had a vast reading of both contemporary social and political thought as well as of Hindu scriptures in Sanskrit and was considered at his time to be a prodigy . Coming from the background of a traditional Hindu monk background being the chosen disciple of the greatest Hindu mystic of his age Ram Krishna Paramhans , he could mix both the new and the ancient with effortless ease .He was ideally placed to therefore to formulate the basis of both Hinduism as we now know it as well as the India as we now see it .

[7] There is just a single letter in which Vivakananda refers to himself as a socialist .The fact that Vivekananda was not too enamoured of socialism but conversationally referred to himself as a “socialist” would be apparent from an exchange of his letters . Ibid ; Vol. 6 ; page 378 ( page 380) “Letter dated 1.11.1896 to Miss Mary Hale” :

“Human society is in turn governed by the four castes — the priests, the soldiers, the traders, and the labourers. Each state has its glories as well as its defects. When the priest (Brahmin) rules, there is a tremendous exclusiveness on hereditary grounds; the persons of the priests and their descendants are hemmed in with all sorts of safeguards — none but they have any knowledge — none but they have the right to impart that knowledge. Its glory is that at this period is laid the foundation of sciences. The priests cultivate the mind, for through the mind they govern.

The military (Kshatriya) rule is tyrannical and cruel, but they are not exclusive; and during that period arts and social culture attain their height.

The commercial (Vaishya) rule comes next. It is awful in its silent crushing and blood-sucking power. Its advantage is, as the trader himself goes everywhere, he is a good disseminator of ideas collected during the two previous states. They are still less exclusive than the military, but culture begins to decay.

Last will come the labourer (Shudra) rule. Its advantages will be the distribution of physical comforts — its disadvantages, (perhaps) the lowering of culture. There will be a great distribution of ordinary education, but extraordinary geniuses will be less and less.

If it is possible to form a state in which the knowledge of the priest period, the culture of the military, the distributive spirit of the commercial, and the ideal of equality of the last can all be kept intact, minus their evils, it will be an deal state. But is it possible?

Yet the first three have had their day. Now is the time for the last — they must have it — none can resist it. I do not know all the difficulties about the gold or silver standards (nobody seems to know much as to that), but this much I see that the gold standard has been making the poor poorer, and the rich richer. Bryan was right when he said, "We refuse to be crucified on a cross of gold." The silver standard will give the poor a better chance in this unequal fight. I am a socialist not because I think it is a perfect system, but half a loaf is better than no bread.

The other systems have been tried and found wanting. Let this one be tried — if for nothing else, for the novelty of the thing. A redistribution of pain and pleasure is better than always the same persons having pains and pleasures. The sum total of good and evil in the world remains ever the same. The yoke will be lifted from shoulder to shoulder by new systems, that is all.

Let every dog have his day in this miserable world, so that after this experience of so-called happiness they may all come to the Lord and give up this vanity of a world and governments and all other botherations.”

His actual thinking was explained in another letter to his brother disciple and the person most responsible for practically applying Vivekananda’s thoughts in practice Swami Akhandananda dated 21.02.1900 where he is extremely specific as to how he wants his work to be carried out :

“Teach some boys and girls of the peasant classes the rudiments of learning and infuse a number of ideas into their brains. Afterwards the peasants of each village will collect funds and have one of these in their village..........— One must raise oneself by one's own exertions" — this holds good in all spheres. We help them to help themselves. That they are supplying you with your daily bread is a real bit of work done. The moment they will come to understand their own condition and feel the necessity of help and improvement, know that your work is taking effect and is in the right direction, while the little good that the moneyed classes, out of pity, do to the poor, does not last, and ultimately it does nothing but harm to both parties. The peasants and labouring classes are in a moribund condition, so what is needed is that the moneyed people will only help them to regain their vitality, and nothing more. Then leave the peasants and labourers to look to their own problem, to grapple with and solve it. But then you must rake care not to set up class-strife between the poor peasants, the labouring people, and wealthy classes. Make it a point not to abuse the moneyed classes. ..............— The wise man should achieve his own object."” Ibid.; vol 6 ; page 427

[8]As Swami Vivekananda wrote in his famous book on “Karma Yoga” “ The householder is the basis, the prop, of the whole society. He is the principal earner. The poor, the weak, the children and the women who do not work — all live upon the householder; so there must be certain duties that he has to perform, and these duties must make him feel strong to perform them, and not make him think that he is doing things beneath his ideal. Therefore, if he has done something weak, or has made some mistake, he must not say so in public; and if he is engaged in some enterprise and knows he is sure to fail in it, he must not speak of it. Such self-exposure is not only uncalled for, but also unnerves the man and makes him unfit for the performance of his legitimate duties in life. At the same time, he must struggle hard to acquire these things — firstly, knowledge, and secondly, wealth. It is his duty, and if he does not do his duty, he is nobody. A householder who does not struggle to get wealth is immoral. If he is lazy and content to lead an idle life, he is immoral, because upon him depend hundreds. If he gets riches, hundreds of others will be thereby supported.
If there were not in this city hundreds who had striven to become rich, and who had acquired wealth, where would all this civilization, and these alms-houses and great houses be?
Going after wealth in such a case is not bad, because that wealth is for distribution. The householder is the centre of life and society. It is a worship for him to acquire and spend wealth nobly, for the householder who struggles to become rich by good means and for good purposes is doing practically the same thing for the attainment of salvation as the anchorite does in his cell when he is praying; for in them we see only the different aspects of the same virtue of self-surrender and self-sacrifice prompted by the feeling of devotion to God and to all that is His”; The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 1 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 45

[9] “Alas! nobody thinks of the poor of this land. They are the backbone of the country, who by their labour are producing food-these poor people, the sweepers and labourers, who if they stop work for one day will create a panic in the town. But there is none to sympathise with them, none to console them in their misery. Just see, for want of sympathy from the Hindus, thousands of Pariahs in Madras are turning Christians. Don't think this is simply due to the pinch of hunger; it is because they do not get any sympathy from us. We are day and night calling out to them, 'Don't touch us! Don't touch us!' Is there any compassion or kindliness of heart in the country? Only a class of 'Don't-touchists'; kick such customs out! I sometimes feel the urge to break the barriers of 'Don't-touchism', to go at once and call out, 'Come, all who are poor, miserable, wretched, and down-trodden', and to bring them all together in the name of Shri Ramakrishna. Unless they rise, the Mother won't awaken. We could not make any provision for food and clothes for these — what have we done then? Alas! they know nothing of worldliness, and therefore even after working day and night cannot provide themselves with food and clothes. Let us open their eyes. I see clear as daylight that there is the one Brahman in all, in them and in me — one Shakti dwells in all. The only difference is of manifestation. Unless the blood circulates over the whole body, has any country risen at any time? If one limb is paralysed, then even with the other limbs whole, not much can be done with that body — know this for certain." The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 7 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 246.

[10] See Gandhi’s discussion about the pioneering work of Vivekananda and the coining of the word “ Dalit” in the year 1927 wherein Gandhi for the first time endorses the word Dalit and specifically attributes it to a translation of Vivekananda’s use of the English word “suppressed” for the untouchables ; Navajivan , 27-3-1927 , Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ; Vol 38 ; page 240

[11] “With the introduction of modern competition, see how caste is disappearing fast! No religion is now necessary to kill it. The Brâhmana shopkeeper, shoemaker, and wine-distiller are common in Northern India. And why? Because of competition. No man is prohibited from doing anything he pleases for his livelihood under the present Government, and the result is neck and neck competition, and thus thousands are seeking and finding the highest level they were born for, instead of vegetating at the bottom.” The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 5 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 23.

[12] Gandhi himself obliquely refers to this demarcation in Vivekananda in his article “Reason v. Authority” ; Young India 26-09-1929 . : vol 47 ; page 149 , though Gandhi terms it as a contradiction , it is apparent that it was a consideration of what India really needed .In the long run , we can safely say Vivekananda’s way seems to be way more practical and real today than of Gandhi’s vision.

[13] “ A cloud of impenetrable darkness has at present equally enveloped us all. Now there is neither firmness of purpose nor boldness of enterprise, neither courage of heart nor strength of mind, neither aversion to maltreatments by others nor dislike for slavery, neither love in the heart nor hope nor manliness; but what we have in India are only deep-rooted envy and strong antipathy against one another, morbid desire to ruin by hook or by crook the weak, and to lick dog-like the feet of the strong. Now the highest satisfaction consists in the display of wealth and power, devotion in self-gratification, wisdom in the accumulation of transitory objects, Yoga in hideous diabolical practices, work in the slavery of others, civilisation in base imitation of foreign nations, eloquence in the use of abusive language, the merit of literature in extravagant flatteries of the rich or in the diffusion of ghastly obscenities! What to speak separately of the distinct Shudra class of such a land, where the whole population has virtually come down to the level of the Shudra? The Shudras of countries other than India have become, it seems, a little awake; but they are wanting in proper education and have only the mutual hatred of men of their own class — a trait common to Shudras. What avails it if they greatly outnumber the other classes? That unity, by which ten men collect the strength of a million, is yet far away from the Shudra; hence, according to the law of nature, the Shudras invariably form the subject race.” The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 1 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 467

[14] “But what can be attained is elimination of privilege. That is really the work before the whole world. In all social lives, there has been that one fight in every race and in every country. The difficulty is not that one body of men are naturally more intelligent than another, but whether this body of men, because they have the advantage of intelligence, should take away even physical enjoyment from those who do not possess that advantage. The fight is to destroy that privilege. That some will be stronger physically than others, and will thus naturally be able to subdue or defeat the weak, is a self-evident fact, but that because of this strength they should gather unto themselves all the attainable happiness of this life, is not according to law, and the fight has been against it. That some people, through natural aptitude, should be able to accumulate more wealth than others, is natural: but that on account of this power to acquire wealth they should tyrannize and ride roughshod over those who cannot acquire so much wealth, is not a part of the law, and the fight has been against that. The enjoyment of advantage over another is privilege, and throughout ages, the aim of morality has been its destruction. This is the work which tends towards sameness, towards unity, without destroying variety.” The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 1 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 435

[15] “The non-Brahmins also have been spending their energy in kindling the fire of caste hatred — vain and useless to solve the problem — to which every non-Hindu is only too glad to throw on a load of fuel.

Not a step forward can be made by these inter-caste quarrels, not one difficulty removed; only the beneficent onward march of events would be thrown back, possibly for centuries, if the fire bursts out into flames.”; The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 4 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 300

[16] “This idea of charity is going out of India; great men are becoming fewer and fewer. When I was first learning English, I read an English story book in which there was a story about a dutiful boy who had gone out to work and had given some of his money to his old mother, and this was praised in three or four pages. What was that? No Hindu boy can ever understand the moral of that story. Now I understand it when I hear the Western idea — every man for himself. And some men take everything for themselves, and fathers and mothers and wives and children go to the wall. That should never and nowhere be the ideal of the householder” The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 1 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 61.

[17] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 4 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 473-476.

[18] “We talk foolishly against material civilisation. The grapes are sour. Even taking all that foolishness for granted, in all India there are, say, a hundred thousand really spiritual men and women. Now, for the spiritualisation of these, must three hundred millions be sunk in savagery and starvation? Why should any starve? ………….. Material civilization, nay, even luxury, is necessary to create work for the poor. Bread! Bread! I do not believe in a God, who cannot give me bread here, giving me eternal bliss in heaven! Pooh! India is to be raised, the poor are to be fed, education is to be spread, and the evil of priestcraft is to be removed. No priestcraft, no social tyranny! More bread, more opportunity for everybody! Our young fools organise meetings to get more power from the English. They only laugh. None deserves liberty who is not ready to give liberty. Suppose the English give over to you all the power. Why, the powers that be then, will hold the people down, and let them not have it. Slaves want power to make slaves.” ; The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 4 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 368.

[19] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda ; Vol : 4 ; Advaitia Ashram ; Kolkata ; 2006 ; page 479