hose whose political concepts are
based, upon the immanent superiority of Hinduism. The new interpretation
of the _Baghvat Gita_, though sometimes distorted to hideous ends, has
itself been inspired by a broader appreciation of social duty than there
was room for in the Hindu theory of life before it had been modified by
Western influences. So long as the spirit of social endeavour kindled by
men like Ram Mohun Roy and Keshab Chunder Sen and Mahadev Govind Ranade
is kept alive, even though by much lesser men, we may well hope that the
present wave of revolt will ultimately spend itself on the dead shore of
a factious and artificial reaction, incompatible with the purpose to
which their own best efforts were devoted, of bringing the social life
of India into harmony with Western civilization.

A phenomenon, which may prove to have a deep significance is that, side
by side with these larger organisations for the promotion of social
reform which only claim incidental service from their members, a number
of smaller societies are growing up of which the members are bound
together by much closer ties and more stringent obligations, and in
some cases even by solemn vows to renounce the world and to devote
themselves wholly to a life of social service. Many of them present
features of special interest which deserve recognition, but I must be
content to describe one of them to which the personality of its founder
lends exceptional importance. This is the society of "The Servants of
India," founded by Mr. Gokhale at Poona. Mr. Gokhale's career itself
exemplifies the cross-currents that are often so perplexing a feature of
Indian unrest. He is chiefly known in England as one of the leading and
certainly most interesting figures in Indian politics. A Chitpavan
Brahman by birth, with the blood of the old dominant caste of
Maharashtra in his veins, he has often been, both in the Viceroy's
Legislative Council and in that of his own Presidency, a severe and even
bitter critic of an alien Government, of which he nevertheless admits
the benefit, and even the necessity, for India. On the other hand,
though he proclaims himself a Nationalist, and though, on one occasion
at least, when he presided over the stormy session of the Indian
National Congress at Calcutta in December, 1906, which endorsed the
Bengalee boycott movement, he lent the weight of his authority to a
policy that was difficult to reconcile with constitutional methods of
opp