IS IT NON-CO-OPERATION?

[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]

 

 

 

IS IT NON-CO-OPERATION?

 

 

The argument has been advanced that with the failure (in my opinion wrongly assumed) of the boycott of titles, schools, law-courts, and Councils, Non-co-operation is dead. The critics see nothing of Non-co-operation in the slow and unexciting khaddar programme. They forget that the fourfold boycott is like scaffolding which is absolutely necessary till the whole structure is ready. It does not matter that the institutions, which are the symbols of the authority we seek to destroy, continue to exist so long as we do not make use of them. The fact is that we cannot erect our structure without the scaffolding of the fourfold boycott. And we must succeed if we can work the Congress organization without the aid of these institutions and even in spite of them. Moreover, let us not forget that our boycott is not fourfold, but fivefold. The fifth is by far the most important, i.e., boycott of foreign (not merely British) cloth. The boycott is the negative, though on that account none the less useful, part of our programme. Khaddar, national schools, Panchayat, Hindu-Muslim unity, and uplift of the untouchable, the drunkard and the opium-eater, are the positive part of our programme. The greater our progress in it, the greater will be the progress towards the boycott and, therefore, towards swaraj. Nature abhors a vacuum. Therefore, construction must keep pace with destruction.

Even if all the titled friends gave up their titles, and if schools, courts and Councils were entirely deserted, and being thus embarrassed the Government abdicated in our favour, and if we had no constructive work to our credit, we could not conduct swaraj. We should be entirely helpless. I often wonder whether it is sufficiently realized that our movement is not one for mere change of personnel but for change of the system and the methods. Full khaddar programme is, therefore, to me full swaraj. The English interest in India is selfish and in conflict with the national interest. It is anti-national, because of the illegitimate cotton interest. To boycott, therefore, foreign cloth is to sterilize the English and all other foreign interests. Boycott merely of British cloth may harm the British, but can lead to no construction in India. Boycott of British cloth will be a jump out of frying pan into fire. Not before the foreign piece-goods trade is entirely replaced by homespun will the bleeding process cease. Boycott of foreign cloth, therefore, is the centre of our boycott programme. The central boycott cannot succeed until we universalize khaddar. In order to achieve the desirable end, we will need to employ all our resources to the fullest extent. We shall need men, money and machinery, i.e., organization. We cannot universalize khaddar without Hindu-Muslim unity, without removing untouchability. To make khaddar successful is to demonstrate our capacity for self-government. Khaddar is a people’s programme, for success in which all, high and low, rich and poor, Hindu and non-Hindu must take part. But say the skeptics, ‘How can khaddar bring swaraj? Will Englishmen then retire in our favour?’

My answer is yes and no. Yes, because Englishmen will then find that their interest must be coincident with that of India. They will then be content to remain in India as her servants, for they will have then found that they cannot impose their custom upon us. When, therefore, khaddar becomes successful, Englishmen’s hearts will have been changed. They will regard it, then, as an honour to be our allies instead of regarding it, as they do now, their right to be our masters. My answer is no, if we intend to drive out Englishmen and ruin every English interest, legitimate or otherwise. Such is not the goal of the non-violent movement. Non-violence has its limits. It refuses to hate or generate hatred. Indeed, by its very nature, it is incapable of so doing. ‘But’ the skeptics further argue, ‘suppose the English refuse to revise their system and insist upon holding India by the sword, what can universal use of khaddar do?’ In thus doubting the efficacy of khaddar, they forget that khaddar is an indispensable preparation for civil disobedience. And this, everyone admits, is an irresistible force. Without the universal adoption of khaddar, I see no chance whatsoever of universal civil, i.e., non-violent, disobedience. Any single district that can be fully organized for khaddar is, if it is also trained for suffering, ready for civil disobedience. And I have not a shadow of doubt that even one district thus organized can make itself irresistible even though the whole might of the Government may be matched against it. ‘Who shall bell the cat?’ is the last question. That question is, however, irrelevant to the present inquiry. The question I set out to answer was whether constructive programme, i.e., khaddar, could be considered part of Non-co-operation. I have attempted to prove that it is an integral part of Non-co-operation in its positive aspect.