BOYCOTT FOREIGN CLOTH

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

BOYCOTT FOREIGN CLOTH

 

 

 Last week I endeavoured to show the futility of the boycott of Empire goods campaign. I submit that it is even harmful in that it distracts the country’s attention from the only effective and indispensable boycott. I have admitted more than once that, if we eliminate non-violence from our consideration, those who do not believe with me that non-violence in politics is the only remedy for achieving our goal and are satisfied that non-violent methods have failed, are not only justified in applying other remedies if they find them more effective, but are bound to do so. My point, however, is that boycott of Empire goods is not at all feasible so long as the present system is in existence. So far as I can sec. the only alternative to non-violence and all it implies is an armed rebellion. If we wish to make preparations for it, boycott of Empire goods has not only a legitimate but it has a necessary place in the national programme. Its retention and a fierce propaganda in its favour must increasingly heat our blood as we realize our impotence. The natural consequence of such propaganda must therefore result in sic undisciplined violence all round. It would not then matter that it is crushed. It will still be considered training in armed rebellion.

Each crushing will certainly bring demoralization among many but will bring increased determination among a few. And out of that small determined band may arise an army of soldiers such as William the Silent surrounded himself with. If the national workers have come to the conclusion that India cannot write new history, but must do as the European countries have done, I would understand and appreciate their campaign of boycott of Empire goods. Even though it may never succeed, it must be kept up as an ideal, because it would be regarded as one of the factories for generating the necessary steam. India has a right to adopt the time-worn method if she chooses to, and no power on earth can deprive her of that right. But I venture to say, with confidence, that the way of the sword is not open to India. I dare to prophesy that if India chooses that way, she must be prepared:

(1) Either to submit to foreign rule for generations to come;

 (2) Or to submit to exclusively Hindu or exclusively Mussalman rule almost in perpetuity. I know that there are Hindus who, if they cannot have a purely Hindu India, are prepared to make the best terms with the Englishmen, and I know, too, that there arc Mussalmans who, till they arc able to impose a purely Mussalman rule on India, are prepared to resign themselves to the English domination.

To this minority I have no argument to address. They must continue to plough the sands. But I know that there is a very large majority that is impatient of foreign domination and is anxious to find an effective method of ridding India of it. I do not despair of convincing them that swaraj in which Hindus, Mussalmans and all others professing different creeds can participate on equal terms is attainable in a much shorter time than they can imagine possible if the thinking portion adopts means that are strictly non-violent, and of further convincing them that attainment of such swaraj is impossible through any other means. For the time being, however, I propose to assume that the Congress creed being what it is, Congressmen are precluded from creating an atmosphere predisposed to violence. Ineffective boycott of Empire goods must create such an atmosphere and, therefore, I go so far as to say that the boycott resolution was ultra virus of the Congress creed. But this point can only be decided by the Congress. Let me; therefore, confine the reader’s attention to the alternative boycott of foreign cloth. I suggest to the Liberals, Nationalists and Congressmen that, if they will all adopt the hand-spun khaddar for their own personal use to the exclusion of all foreign or Indian mill-cloth and if they will themselves religiously spin for a definite period every day and persuade every member of their family to do likewise, and if they will to the extent of their ability introduce the wheel and the use of khaddar among their neighbours, the nation can bring about the boycott of foreign cloth even in a year’s time. Even as they may not, on any pretext whatsoever, use foreign cloth, they may not use cloth manufactured in our mills.

I must distinguish between the two prohibitions. Boycott of foreign cloth is a vital necessity for all time. There is no question of a permanent national boycott of mill-cloth. But Indian mills alone can never supply the present demand for cloth, whereas the charkha and the hand-loom can. But the khaddar, the product of the charkha, has yet to become popular and universal. It can only be so if the thinking portion of India will make the commencement. They must, therefore, restrict their use of cloth to khaddar only. Our mills need no patronage from us. Their goods are popular enough. Moreover, the nation has no control over the mills. They are not philanthropic institutions. They are frankly selfish. They have their own propaganda. If they recognize the signs of the times, they will help the foreign cloth boycott movement by cheapening their cloth and taking to areas not served at present by khaddar. They can, if they will, avoid competition with khaddar and are satisfied with supplementing it. Boycott of foreign cloth cannot be immediately accomplished unless every national worker religiously avoids the use of mill-made cloth. Surely, the proposition is too simple to need any argument. Khaddar, which has to find a market, must command preference among enlightened men. I have hitherto examined the use of khaddar as the only effective and speedy means of bringing about a successful boycott of foreign cloth as distinguished from and as an alternative to that of Empire goods.

But when to this potency of khaddar is added its power to feed the starving millions, the case becomes irresistible. It is perhaps now easy to understand why a charkha atmosphere has to be created and why every man and woman and child who understands the necessity of the charkha for the national well-being must religiously spin for some time every day. The peasantry of India is among the most industrious in the world as it is perhaps also the idlest. Both its industry and idleness are imposed upon it. It must work to make its fields yield their harvest. The East India Company by killing hand-spinning made it idle when it had no full labour to do. The peasantry will now return to the charkha only when we set the example. Mere precept will produce little impression upon it. And when thousands spin for love, it is possible to give higher wages for spinning if we would keep the same price for khaddar. I have myself been able to sell khaddar manufactured at the Satyagraha Ashram cheaper because I had maunds of yarn lovingly thrown to me by the Punjabi sisters during my tour in the Punjab in 1919. It was possible for me, if I had liked, to pay their wages to professional spinners, and not reduce the price of khaddar. I (lid not do so because, at that early stage of the khaddar movement, I was paying so high a price as 4 annas for one pound of yarn indifferently spun. If the Liberals and the Congressmen, stung by the Kenya decision, hurled the ineffective boycott of Empire goods at the heads of the white Colonists of Kenya, why will they not, in their cooler moments, concentrate their effort upon the complete success of the khaddar movement and thereby ensure the boycott of all foreign cloth? Need I prove that the boycott of foreign cloth will not only bring relief to the Kenya Indians, but it will also bring swaraj?