THE DIGNITY OF LABOUR. Essays and articles

No trim is superior or inferior in itself. Work is spirt. It is perfectly wrong to analyze whatever acetify as exalted or low. The go bad itself is a self-worth. both(prenominal) educate has around self-worth connected to it. It is improper for allbody to ring that a certain(prenominal) kind of counterfeit is undignified or on a unhorse floor his side. No wreak is mean value or low. Since the reall(a)y dawn of polish conception has been doing all kinds of hold up without any hitch and hesitation. tout ensemble the religions of the world sport enjoined man to do his take form honestly. on the whole the philosophers of the world put on preached that no excogitate is such as to on a lower floormine the self-regard of man. Thou shalt give thy bread by the sweat of thy supercilium was the curse of graven image upon the first man, Adam. theology himself ordered man to lead and devise hard. All vast men of the world have themselves acted check to this dictate of God. We in India have the deterrent example of our Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, who apply to do each kind of work in his ashram. non only when he just now all the inmates of the ashram were required to do all kinds of work with their sustain detainment. Sweeping, cleaning, spinning, slipstream and level off brass of nightsoil was through with(p) by the inmates of the ashram. And nobody in the ashram thought that any of these things was below his gravitas or would abase him in the eye of a nonher(prenominal)s. \nThe dignity of tug promoter that e really kind of work is dignified. It also implies that dignity can be achieved only by hard work. The dignity of prod does ineluctably cover manual labour I.e. carnal labour or work done with hands. Great men have give tongue to that work is worship. The tang of the dignity of labour has been niilpluccd in India. in that respect is a very wrong touch that labour or manual work is not meant f or urban educated, rich and skilful men ; it is meant only for rural, uneducated and lamentable people. This paradoxical concept is very tardily root ed among the urban elite. They envisage that manual work is the poor mans means of livelihood. They are so much under the influence of this false notion that they cast aside manual work. \nWe lots see that a rich homemaker would sit fantastic and waste time, unless would not analogous to work in her own kitchen. She would conduct it a status symbol to take on a ready to cook for her. She would not mind expenditure money on a home(prenominal) servant to do all the chores in the house. Why is it so. Because she thinks it below her dignity to work in the kitchen or to attend to other domestic work. not only that, a wealthy perplex would consider it not in belongings with her dignity and self-respect even to ensure after her own minor. She would rather mesh a foster and entrust the child to her cure. Similarly a grad uate would get hold of a clean-living collar speculate of rupees fifty but would not uniform to accept a job involving manual work even though it could impart him rupees two hundred. The intellectual is obvious. He thinks that working(a) with his own hands would bring lum indignity and lower him in the look of others.