I believe in socialism but do not reduce the disparity between the salaries of big and small officials and the difference of income between the rich and the poor, though this difference is perhaps greater in India than in any other civilized country. In the first instance a person should say whatever he thinks proper, whatever he is or not able to achieve it. There are difficulties in actual practice, especially in these matters. In personal matters if a person preaches something to others but not act on it, that is wrong. But as far as society is concerned, the thing might not be within his control. There might be a thousand factors to be coped with. So a person says something in an effort to change the opinion of the society. You might call it propaganda, publicity or teaching. In my opinion this expression is generally a step ahead of actual practice. As for the difference in salaries I feel it has no connection with socialism. I think it is wrong to treat them as synonyms. In my opinion it is basically harmful ton think in this way every time. I agree that there should be less disparity among salaries. But to see socialism in reducing disparity is not to understand even the A B C of socialism. I get irritated by such things.

Does socialism mean cutting people's heads, noses, ears and pockets? That would be the socialism of poverty; but the very term socialism came into being when some wealth was produced in the world. When there is no industry about hundred years ago there was no mention of socialism. So it is a basically wrong thing. I agree that equality of opportunities is the ideal of socialism. But even there it does not say equality of incomes. Equality of incomes at a very late stage, when there is no much wealth in the world that there is no necessity of paying salaries to anybody and every can just pick up whatever he needs. That would mean enough production for the needs of all. That is another matter. But there is no country including Soviet Russia where this difference is absent. They give more incentives in the form of greater salaries and more facilities. Of course it is true that there should be an equality of opportunity in accordance with individual capacity. Secondly, it is agreed that there should be no difference of high and low in the world, at least it should be as little as possible. But socialism is only the culmination of this. You can not start with this point. For if you do, you immediately check the strength of grow. You check the capacity of the country and make the people feel that they are being made fools so that they may remain on an equal level.

On the other hand, you may remain cut off from the world and live as it were in a cage. Then you can do whatever you like. But when you come in contact with the world you can not avoid progress. Many of our very good scientists and engineers go out of India and remain abroad, for we can not stop them. We can not make them work by wringing their necks. Further, some things are necessary also in the interest of efficiency. For example, a scientist might not be able to work at a low remuneration. Therefore, you have to prescribe certain minimum. For the work of people like scientists is of a higher level. We have to create levels. But as the general level goes on increasing, this difference in wages diminishes. On the other hand, maximum remuneration at each level should also not be too high. It should be brought down. These adjustments are necessary and therefore have to be made.