Document <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-model href="http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LEAF-VRE/code_snippets/refs/heads/main/CSS/leaf.css"?> <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <teiHeader> <fileDesc> <titleStmt> <!-- The title, author, and/or editor here should identify the original document that you are encoding. If you don't have information for one of these, or if you have multiple individuals, you can repeat the particular element--> <title>Sarvodaya III</title> <author>Gandhi</author> </titleStmt> <!-- I'm still trying to figure out the best way to present the project information, but will add that asap --> <publicationStmt> <authority>Karline McLain</authority> <date>2026</date> <availability> <!-- --> <licence/> </availability> </publicationStmt> <sourceDesc> <p>Born digital edition</p> </sourceDesc> </fileDesc> <xenoData><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:as="http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#" xmlns:cwrc="http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:geo="http://www.geonames.org/ontology#" xmlns:oa="http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" xmlns:fabio="https://purl.org/spar/fabio#" xmlns:bf="http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#" xmlns:cito="https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#" xmlns:org="http://www.w3.org/ns/org#"> <rdf:Description rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/"> <![CDATA[{ "@context": { "dcterms:created": { "@type": "xsd:dateTime", "@id": "dcterms:created" }, "dcterms:issued": { "@type": "xsd:dateTime", "@id": "dcterms:issued" }, "oa:motivatedBy": { "@type": "oa:Motivation" }, "@language": "en", "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#", "as": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#", "cwrc": "http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#", "dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/", "dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/", "foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/", "geo": "http://www.geonames.org/ontology#", "oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#", "schema": "http://schema.org/", "xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#", "fabio": "https://purl.org/spar/fabio#", "bf": "http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#", "cito": "https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#", "org": "http://www.w3.org/ns/org#" }, "id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102753018", "type": "oa:Annotation", "dcterms:created": "2026-05-11T14:27:53.018Z", "dcterms:modified": "2026-05-11T14:27:53.018Z", "dcterms:creator": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/user/72", "@type": [ "cwrc:NaturalPerson", "schema:Person" ], "cwrc:hasName": "kmclain" }, "oa:motivatedBy": "oa:describing", "oa:hasTarget": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102753018#Target", "@type": "oa:SpecificResource", "oa:hasSource": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml", "@type": "dctypes:Text", "dc:format": "text/xml" }, "oa:renderedVia": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu", "@type": "as:Application", "rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer", "schema:softwareVersion": "4.1.0" }, "oa:hasSelector": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102753018#Selector", "@type": "oa:XPathSelector", "rdf:value": "TEI/text/body/div/head/note" } }, "oa:hasBody": { "@type": "cwrc:NoteScholarly", "dc:format": "text/plain", "rdf:value": "This is the third in a series of essays that Gandhi published in his weekly newspaper Indian Opinion wherein he provided a paraphrase of John Ruskin's essay \"Unto This Last.\" This essay was foundational to Gandhi's decision to found his first community, Phoenix Settlement, and to his philosophy of universal wellbeing (sarvodaya)." }, "as:generator": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu", "@type": "as:Application", "rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer", "schema:url": "https://leaf-writer.lincsproject.ca/", "schema:softwareVersion": "4.1.0" } }]]> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/"> <![CDATA[{ "@context": { "dcterms:created": { "@type": "xsd:dateTime", "@id": "dcterms:created" }, "dcterms:issued": { "@type": "xsd:dateTime", "@id": "dcterms:issued" }, "oa:motivatedBy": { "@type": "oa:Motivation" }, "@language": "en", "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#", "as": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#", "cwrc": "http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#", "dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/", "dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/", "foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/", "geo": "http://www.geonames.org/ontology#", "oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#", "schema": "http://schema.org/", "xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#", "fabio": "https://purl.org/spar/fabio#", "bf": "http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#", "cito": "https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#", "org": "http://www.w3.org/ns/org#" }, "id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102820764", "type": "oa:Annotation", "dcterms:created": "2026-05-11T14:28:20.764Z", "dcterms:modified": "2026-05-11T14:28:20.764Z", "dcterms:creator": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/user/72", "@type": [ "cwrc:NaturalPerson", "schema:Person" ], "cwrc:hasName": "kmclain" }, "oa:motivatedBy": "oa:describing", "oa:hasTarget": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102820764#Target", "@type": "oa:SpecificResource", "oa:hasSource": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml", "@type": "dctypes:Text", "dc:format": "text/xml" }, "oa:renderedVia": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu", "@type": "as:Application", "rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer", "schema:softwareVersion": "4.1.0" }, "oa:hasSelector": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2026-05/sarvodaya-iii.xml?note_annotation_20260511102820764#Selector", "@type": "oa:XPathSelector", "rdf:value": "TEI/text/body/div/div/p[6]/note" } }, "oa:hasBody": { "@type": "cwrc:NoteScholarly", "dc:format": "text/plain", "rdf:value": "Gandhi continued his paraphrase of Ruskin's \"Unto This Last\" in his weekly newspaper. See \"Sarvodaya IV\" for the next installation." }, "as:generator": { "@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu", "@type": "as:Application", "rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer", "schema:url": "https://leaf-writer.lincsproject.ca/", "schema:softwareVersion": "4.1.0" } }]]> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF></xenoData></teiHeader> <text> <body> <!-- You can give an element an attribute – think of it like an adjective for the element as a noun --> <div type="essay"> <head>Sarvodaya III<note type="scholarNote">This is the third in a series of essays that Gandhi published in his weekly newspaper Indian Opinion wherein he provided a paraphrase of John Ruskin's essay "Unto This Last." This essay was foundational to Gandhi's decision to found his first community, Phoenix Settlement, and to his philosophy of universal wellbeing (sarvodaya).</note></head> <dateline><title>Indian Opinion</title> <docDate>May 30, 1908</docDate></dateline> <div><head>Roots of Truth [continued]</head> <p>It usually happens that, if the master is a man of sense and energy, the servant works hard enough, under pressure; it also happens that, if the master is indolent and weak, the performance of the servant is not of the best in the quality or quantity. But the true law is that, if we compare two masters of equal intelligence, the servant of the one who is sympathetically inclined will work better than that of the other who is not so inclined.</p> <p>It may be argued that this principle does not quite hold, since kindness and indulgence are sometimes rewarded with their opposites. The servant becomes unmanageable. But the argument is nevertheless invalid. A servant who rewards kindness with negligence will become vengeful when treated harshly. A servant who is dishonest to a liberal master will be injurious to an unjust one.</p> <p>Therefore, in any case and with any person, this unselfish treatment will yield the most effective return. We are here considering affections only as a motive power. That we should be kind because kindness is good is quite another consideration. We are not thinking of that for the present. We only want to point out here that not only are the ordinary laws of economics, which we considered above, rendered nugatory by the motive power of kindness – sympathy – but also that affection, being a power of an altogether different kind, is inconsonant with the laws of economics and can survive only if those laws are ignored. If the master is a calculating person who shows kindness only in expectation of a return, he will probably be disappointed. Kindness should be exercised for the sake of kindness; the reward will then come unsought. It is said that he who loses his life shall find it, and he who finds it shall lose it.</p> <p>Let us take the example of a regiment and its commander. If a general seeks to get his troops to work in accordance with the principles of economics, he will fail. There are many instances of generals cultivating direct, personal relations with their men, treating them with kindness, sharing their joys and hardships, ensuring their safety – in brief, treating them with sympathy. A general of this kind will be able to exact the most arduous work from his troops. If we look into history, we shall rarely find a battle won where the troops had no love for their general. Thus the bond of sympathy between the general and his troops is the truest force. Even a band of robbers has the utmost affection for its leader. And yet we find no such intimate relation between the employer and the employees in textile mills and other factories. One reason for this is that, in these factories, the wages of the employees are determined by the laws of supply and demand. Between the employer and the employee there obtains, therefore, the relation of disaffection rather than of affection, and instead of sympathy between them we find antagonism. We have then to consider two questions: one, how far the rate of wages may be so regulated as not to vary with the demand for labor; second, how far workmen can be maintained in factories, without any change in their numbers irrespective of the state of trade, with the same bond [between workmen and employer] as obtains between servants and master in an old family, or between soldiers and their commander.</p> <p>Let us consider the first question. It is surprising why economists do nothing to make it possible for standards of payment for factory workers to be fixed. We see, on the other hand, that the office of the Prime Minister of England is not put up to auction, but that whoever the incumbent, the remuneration remains the same. Nor do we offer the job of a priest to anyone who agrees to accept the lowest salary. With physicians and lawyers, too, we do not generally deal in this manner. Thus we observe that in these instances a certain standard of payment is fixed. It may be asked, however, whether a good workman and bad one must both be paid the same wage. In fact, that is as it should be. In the result, the rate of wages for all workers being the same, we shall engage only a good bricklayer or carpenter as we go only to a good physician or lawyer – the fees of all physicians or lawyers being the same. That is the proper reward of the good workman – to be chosen. Therefore, the right system respecting all labor is that it should be paid at fixed rates. Where a bad workman finds it possible to deceive employers by accepting a low wage, the eventual outcome cannot but be bad.</p> <p>Let us now consider the second point. It is that, whatever the state of trade, the factories must maintain the same number of workers in employment. When there is no security of employment, the workers are obliged to ask for higher wages. If, however, they can be assured of continued employment for life, they will be prepared to work for very low wages. It is clear therefore that the employer who assures security of employment to his workers will find it profitable in the long run. The employees also stand to gain if they continue steadily in the same job. Large profits are not possible in factories run on these lines. Big risks cannot be taken. Gambling on a large scale will not be possible. The soldier is ready to lay down his life for the sake of his commander. That is why the work of a soldier is considered more honorable than that of an ordinary worker. The soldier’s trade is really, not slaying, but being slain in defense of others. Anyone who enlists as a soldier holds his life at the service of the state. This is true also of the lawyer, the physician and the priest. That is why we look up to them with respect. A lawyer must do justice even at the cost of his life. The physician must treat his patients at the cost of inconvenience to himself. And the clergyman must instruct his congregation and direct it along the right path, regardless of consequences.<note type="scholarNote">Gandhi continued his paraphrase of Ruskin's "Unto This Last" in his weekly newspaper. See "Sarvodaya IV" for the next installation.</note></p></div> </div> </body> </text> </TEI>
