Question Boxes and Mahatma Gandhi-XXX

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

Question Boxes and Mahatma Gandhi-XXX

 

Q. You say that one of the contracting parties in a marriage should be a Harijan. I hope you do not call other marriages taboo.

A. This is a good question. I do not believe that all other marriages are taboo. I have pointed to the ideal, the practical attainment of which it is our duty to strive for as speedily as possible.

 Harijan, 3-3-1946  

Q. You have declared that freedom seems to be near. But I cannot follow the point. The Pakistan problem is only one complication against you.

 A. Hope knows no insurmountable complications. But why ask when the answer will be known within a few months, if not weeks. And I am not the only optimist this time.

Harijan, 24-3-1946  

Q. What to do when the local Congress machinery refuses to act or work in a way which is effective?

A. A person who is a real Congressman will, in such circumstances, himself act singly or in co-operation with others purely in a spirit of service and give all the credit to the Congress organization. Supposing that many persons acted thus, Congress would rise from day to day. Ineffective workers would be shamed into becoming effective, the Congress machinery always remaining clean and intact. “In a spirit of service” is here the operative phrase. If the spirit is that of aggrandizement, although the work done may be effective, credit will probably go to the aggressor and the Congress will lose. That the aggressor will lose in the end need not be stressed.

Q. What should a Congress worker do when he faces a situation at a place which is outside his area of work?

A. Areas are prescribed for workers for their weakness, not for their strength. For a strong Congress worker all India is the area of his work, and he will be found every time in the area where he is wanted most. Naturally he will be never regarded as an intruder or as an officious man. Appreciation of the service will be uppermost in the minds of all. It would be ludicrous and a sign of impotence, if a Congressman passing through an area not his own and finding a battle royal between two factions does not interpose himself between them, even at the cost of his life, on the untenable plea that the trouble was outside his area.

Q. Can the same person take up parliamentary work, constructive work as distinguished from the parliamentary and the organization work of the Congress, in addition to working for his own livelihood?

A. He must be a modern Hercules who can effectively do these things at the same time. I can conceive the possibility of the same person managing all these departments with a staff of efficient secretaries and clerks working under him. The point of the question, however, is wholly different. Division of labour is a necessity. One-man- show is always undesirable and is a positive hindrance to a system of organization. An organization like the British kingship is not personal. “The King is dead. Long live the King.” Hence the saying, “the King can do no wrong.” A king as an individual may be a rascal but personified as an organization he is perfect in the sense the word ‘perfection’ is understood in a given society. The moral is that however inefficient the persons in charge may be in the beginning stages, in a progressive organization, persons taking charge should be above board and should put the organization first, themselves last. If an attempt is made to organize work through rascals, the organization will always have rascals at its head.

Q. August 1942 has brought a psychological change in the public mind. They do not await orders from the Congress for observance of days, etc. Other parties often take advantage of this spontaneous effort and associate their programme with it, while official local Congress either keeps mum or inactive. It also often happens that programmes and policies as laid down by the Working Committee are not automatically adopted by the Provincial Congress Committees or are sometimes worked out half-heartedly. Some also refuse to create machinery for it, till they are officially called upon to do so. In such circumstances, what is expected of Congressmen?

A. This is a good question. If Congressmen have really learnt to act for themselves since August 1942, it is a great thing. But I do not believe it. Those only act for themselves who think for themselves. It does not matter whether in doing so they make mistakes. A child often stumbles before it begins to walk. Therefore the effort ceases to be spontaneous or individual when one associates with any programme that comes his way. The secret of the August resolution was that when the Congress as an organization ceased to function every Congressman became his own master, which is wholly different from becoming a pawn in any other person’s or group’s or party’s game. The second part of the question shows also that 1942 did not teach Congressmen to think and act independently. If they had learnt that lesson truly and well, any programme laid down by the Working Committee would be followed by Congressmen whole-heartedly and the response from Provincial Committees and all constituent elements would be spontaneous, such that the whole organization would move like one man. Such was my expectation in 1942. That it was not so fulfilled is a matter of history. That the people acted somehow, without being paralyzed by the wholesale onslaught of the Government, stands to their credit. How much more creditable it would have been, if they had fully carried out the policy of non-violence explicitly laid down in that resolution! If my argument is correct, it follows that Congressmen with understanding would follow implicitly the Working Committee’s resolutions without reference to the action of their neighbours. When organizational effort stops or is neutralized or becomes ineffective, every individual belonging to it holds himself responsible for the activity of his organization and then gradually builds it up.

Q. When sporadic strikes are such as cannot be supported by the Congress, what should Congressmen and the public do to put an end to them?

A. In the first place, if the Congress organization were complete, there would be no sporadic strikes, and any other strike would be unjustified for the simple reason that a people’s organization must shoulder the burden of every justifiable strike within the sphere of that organization. But today unhappily the Congress, powerful as it is, has not attained that supreme position. Hence every sporadic strike has to be judged on merits irrespective of the party that has made itself responsible for it. And, when a strike is indefensible on merits, the Congress and the public should unequivocally condemn it. The natural result would be that the men on strike would go back to work. If the strike is justified, the institution against which it has been declared would be likewise condemned, if it employs black-legs or other questionable means to force strikers into submission.

Harijan, 31-3-1946  

Q. Horse racing is going on in many important cities. It is alike a lure for high and low, rich and poor, and it leads to moral degradation and, in some cases, penury. Many Princes spend lakhs of their people’s money on buying race horses. What steps should our new government take to check this evil?

A. There is no doubt whatsoever about the evil. The good it is supposed to do is extremely doubtful. And, at this time of growing distress in the country, it is criminal. The new national government can do a great deal to check the evil. But let us recognize their limitations. Being popular, i. e., people’s governments, they will never be able to go far in advance of popular opinion. That is specially a function belonging to reformers. But these governments can certainly, by their own example, rob the evil of the stamp of fashion that the bureaucracy has set upon it even to the point of wasting public money on the luxury. The Princes will copy the example of good manners that the national governments may set.

Q. We find that the Congress is reluctant to select women representatives on a large scale for elective bodies. It is surely just and necessary that more women are taken into the various bodies. How would you deal with the question?

A. I am not enamored of equality or any other proportion in such matters. Merit should be the only test. Seeing, however, that it has been the custom to decry women, the contrary custom should be to prefer women, merit being equal, to men even if the preference should result in men being entirely displaced by women. It would be a dangerous thing to insist on membership on the ground merely of sex. Women and for that matter any group should disdain patronage. They should seek justice, never favour. Therefore the proper thing is for women as indeed for men to advance the spread not of English or Western education among them, but such education on general lines through their provincial languages as will fit them for the numerous duties of citizenship. For men to take a lead in this much-needed reform would be not a matter of favour but a simple act of belated justice due to women.

Harijan, 7-4-1946  

Q. What would be the treatment meted out to criminals in free India in the light of your non-violence?

A. In independent India of the non-violent type, there will be crime but no criminals. They will not be punished. Crime is a disease like any other malady and is a product of the prevalent social system. Therefore, all crime including murder will be treated as a disease. Whether such an India will ever come into being is another question.

Harijan, 5-5-1946  

Q. How should a strike be conducted so that hooliganism and violence are avoided?

A. A strike should be spontaneous and not manipulated. If it is organized without any compulsion there would be no chance for goondaism and looting. Such a strike would be characterized by perfect co-operation amongst the strikers. It should be peaceful and there should be no show of force. The strikers should take up some work either singly or in co-operation with one another, in order to earn their bread. The nature of such work should have been thought out beforehand. It goes without saying that in a peaceful, effective and firm strike of this character, there will be no room for rowdyism or looting. I have known of such strikes. I have not presented a Utopian picture.

Q. Why do you go to the doctors for examination and diagnosis and not to the vaidyas?

A. The vaidyas do not possess the knowledge of the human body as the doctors do. The basis of diagnosis in Ayurveda is the theory of tridosh. They have not got to the bottom even of that. The doctors are ever carrying on research and making new discoveries. One either goes forward or backward. Nothing remains static in the world. Those who become static, become lifeless. God alone is static, but amazing as it may sound, He is described both as motionless and full of motion. Moreover, doctors and vaidyas are my friends. The doctors have clung to me. One of them has become more than my own daughter. One’s own daughter can leave her father; how can one who has chosen to become a daughter? The vaidyas themselves use, though indifferently, the methods of diagnosis used by the doctors or else they advise the patient to go to the doctors for it. The vaidyas possess the knowledge of certain drugs which they use effectively. But the doctors, vaidyas and hakims all slave for money. They do not take to the profession purely from a spirit of service. That some of them have that spirit does not contradict my statement. Nature cure is the only thing which has come into existence purely from the point of view of selfless service. Today even that has become a means of making money. Thus money has taken the place of God. The doctors examine me, but I depend on none but God. He is the Master of every breath I take. If He wills it, He will keep me up to 125 years. If not, He might carry me off any moment, leaving the medical friends staring as helpless spectators.

Q. You have often said that when you talk of “Rama” you refer to the Ruler of the universe and not to Rama, the son of Dasharatha. But we find that your Ramdhun calls on “Sita-Rama”, “Raja-Rama”, and it ends with “Victory to Rama the Lord of Sita”. Who is this Rama if not the son of the king Dasharatha?

A. I have answered such questions before. But there is something new in this one. It demands a reply. In Ramdhun “Raja- Rama”, “Sita-Rama” is undoubtedly repeated. Is not this ‘Rama’ the same as the son of Dasharatha? Tulsidas has answered this question. But let me put down my own view. More potent than Rama is the Name. Hindu Dharma is like a boundless ocean teeming with priceless gems. The deeper you dive into it the more treasures you find. In Hindu religion God is known by various names. Thousands of people doubtless look upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally believe that God came down in person on earth in the form of Rama the son of Dasharatha, and that by worshipping Him one can attain salvation. The same thing holds good about Krishna. History, imagination and truth have got so inextricably mixed up, it is next to impossible to disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and forms attributed to God as symbols denoting one formless omnipresent Rama. To me, therefore, Rama described as the Lord of Sita, name, inscribed in the heart, removes all suffering, mental, moral and physical.

Harijan, 2-6-1946  

Q. What do you say to the following from Bertrand Russell? “I once in the course of a country walk saw a tired fox at the last stages of exhaustion still forcing him to run. A few minutes afterwards I saw the hunt. They asked me if I had seen the fox, and I said I had. They asked me which way he had gone and I laid to them. I do not think I should have been a better man if I had told the truth.”

A. Bertrand Russell is a great writer and philosopher. With all respect to him I must dissent from the view attributed to him. He made the initial mistake of admitting that he had seen the fox. He was not bound to answer the first question. He could even refuse to answer the second question unless he deliberately wanted to put the hunt off the track. I have always maintained that nobody is bound always to answer questions that may be put to him. Truth-telling admits of no exceptions.

A correspondent complains: In many of the provinces there are Congress ministries, and the public is proud of the fact. So when any minister visits any place, the local bodies or local institution show their respect by presenting addresses of value. In almost all the cases, these things become the property of the minister. This practice, in my opinion, is not good. Either this system of receiving addresses must be stopped or the things presented should go, say, to the local Congress Committee. There should be some definite policy regarding the garlanding of the ministers or the Congress leaders. I have seen several cases where these ministers have been honoured with flowers costing not less than 300 to 400 rupees. This is mere waste of money.

1. The complaint is valid. No public servant receives for his own use addresses of the value or costly floral tributes. These things have become a nuisance, if they are not much worse. The argument is often trotted out that costly frames and flowers put money into the pockets of artisans. The latter are well able to take care of themselves without the aid of ministers and the like. These gentlemen do not travel for pleasure. Theirs are business tours undertaken often for listening to what the poeple have to say. The addresses presented to them need not extol their virtues which are their own reward. They should express accurately local wants and grievances if any. In these times the ministers and their secretaries have a hard task before them. Public adulation instead of being a help will become a hindrance.

 

Harijan, 9-6-1946  

A correspondent writes: Supposing that in a Government or private godown food grains are being allowed to rot while people are starving because none are available in the market, what are workers to do? Would it be permissible to resort to something in the nature of your Dharasana salt raid in order to save the people? Otherwise, what alternative is there to either looting or dying like dumb cattle, of both of which you disapprove?

1. It should be common because that looting in itself can never do any good. Wherever it is claimed to have done so, the good consisted only in drawing the attention of the authority to a crying want. The way of voluntary fasting that I have suggested is the most efficient because it is good in itself and good also as an effective demonstration. It is good in itself because the people who voluntarily fast exhibit strength of will which saves them from the pangs of hunger and wakes up public conscience as also that of the authority, assuming that the latter can have any conscience at all. So far as the Dharasana salt raid is concerned, apart from the fact that there were, according to my conception of it, several mistakes made, it was a perfect thing of its kind and a heroic struggle in which the sufferings undergone were bravely borne. But the distinction between it and loot should be clearly borne in mind. The Dharasana Salt Works were conceived to be national property. The intention there was not to seize the property by force. The fight was to assert the right of the nation to the possession of all salt yielded by land or sea in India. If the raid had succeeded, that is to say, if the Government had yielded, they would have done so to the nation’s sufferings which the raid and the like involved. And, as a matter of fact, the sum total of the sufferings undergone by the people on a nation-wide scale did result in what is known as the Irwin-Gandhi Pact. Thus it will be seen that between the loot that the correspondent has in mind and the Dharasana raid there is no analogy whatsoever.

 

 Harijan, 23-6-1946

The same writer, who has asked the question about the propriety of looting, asks also what the poor sweeper is to do when everything else fails. He indignantly asks: Is the Bhangi to continue his service on starvation wages, living in dirt and squalor?

 A. The question is appropriate. I claim that in such cases the proper remedy is not a strike but a notice to the public in general and the employing corporation in particular that the Bhangis must give up the sweeping service which consigns those reserved for that service to a life of starvation and all it means. There is a wide distinction between a strike and an entire discontinuation (not suspension) of service. A strike is a temporary measure in expectation of relief. Discontinuance is giving up of a particular job because there is no expectation of relief. Proper discontinuance presupposes fair notice on the one hand and prospect of better wages and freedom from squalor and dirt on the other. This will wake up society from its disgraceful slumber result in in a proper scavenging of the over-growth that has smothered public conscience. At a stroke the Bhangis will rise scavenging to a fine art and give it the status it should have had long ago.

Q. “Ah, Christ that it was possible for one short hour to see the souls we loved, that they might tell us what and where they be.” What would you say?

A. The poet expresses in the above the cry of many an anguished heart. Nevertheless the truly detached mind does not care to know the beyond. In other words, it is wrong to have the desire. Therefore, the following from the well-known hymn of Cardinal New-man represents the reality: “I do not ask to see the distant scene, one step enough for me.”

Harijan, 23-6-1946  

Q. Is it possible during prayers, for thousands who assemble at your prayer gatherings, to concentrate their minds on anything whatever?

A. I can only answer yes. For, if I did not believe in mass prayer, I should cease to hold public prayers. My experience confirms my belief. Success depends upon the purity of the leader and the faith of the audience. I know instances in which the audience had faith and the leader was an impostor. Such cases will continue to happen. But truth like the sun shines in the midst of the darkness of untruth. The result in my case will be known probably after my death. A wag asks three questions in this matter. One requiring an answer runs: “Is not political education infinitely superior to the religious?” In my opinion, political education is nothing worth, if it is not backed by a sound grounding in religion by which is not meant sectional or sectarian belief. Man without religion is man without roots. Therefore, religion is the basis on which all life structure has to be erected, if life is to be real.

Q. What is the employer to do when an employee of his is addicted to stealing and is not amenable to correction whether it is by way of entreaty or the cane?

A. It may well be that the others too are addicts though they may not be found out. Observation would show that we are all thieves, the difference being that most of us are tolerant towards ourselves and intolerant towards those that are found out and are not of the ordinary run. What is a man, if he is not a thief, who openly charges as much as he can for the goods he sells? If the reply be that the buyer is a willing dupe, it begs the question. In reality the buyer is helpless rather than willing. The stealing referred to is one of the symptoms of a deep-seated disease of society. It is symptomatic of the eternal strife between the monied few and the many paupers. Therefore, my advice to the employer will be to remove all temptation in the way of the thief, to treat him as if he was his own brother and, when he refuses to yield to any treatment, however humanitarian it may be, to ask him to go his way. Let the employer always ask himself whether he would treat his own brother in the same way at the given stage.

Harijan, 21-7-1946  

Q. I am a young businessman of 21 years and have 11 dependents. I believe in truth and non-violence but find I cannot strictly follow it in business. What should I do? Abandoning the business means suffering for my relations.

A. This begs the question. It is difficult but not impossible to conduct strictly honest business. The fact is that the honester a business the more successful it is. Hence the proverb coined by businessmen “Honesty is the best policy”. What the correspondent lacks is application and an accurate knowledge of honest business methods. What is true is that honesty is incompatible with the amassing of a large fortune. “Verily, verily, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” Nor therefore should an honest businessman, however capable he may be, support idlers whether eleven or more or fewer. The eleven dependents cannot all be infants or incapables. Honesty makes no impossible demands upon the resources of a businessman. An honest man cannot have dishonest kinsmen. The questioner will find on introspection that there is nothing wrong with honest business but that there is something wrong with him. Let him find out what it is that is wrong with him.

Q. Are the time, place and manner of death predestined by the Almighty for each individual? If so, why worry even if we are ill?

A. I do not know whether time, place and the manner of death are predestined. All I do know is that ‘not a blade of grass moves but by His will’. This too I know hazily. What is hazy today will be clear tomorrow or the day after by prayerful waiting. Let this however be quite clear. The Almighty is not a person like us. He or It is the greatest living Force or Law in the world. Accordingly He does not act by caprice, nor does that Law admit of any amendment or improvement. His will is fixed and changeless, everything else changes every second. Surely, it does not follow from the doctrine of predestination that we may not ‘worry’ in the care of ourselves even if we are ill. In difference to illness is a crime greater than that of falling ill. There is no end to the effort to do better today than yesterday. We have to ‘worry’ and find out why we are or have become ill. Health, not ‘illth’, is the law of nature. Let us investigate the law of nature and obey it, if we will not be ill or, if having fallen ill, will be restored.

Harijan, 28-7-1946

My post contains so many letters from persons who want to be in the Constituent Assembly that it frightens me into the suspicion that, if these letters are an indication of the general feeling, the intelligentsia is more anxious about personal aggrandizement than about India’s independence. And if I, though I have no connection with the applications of candidates for elections, receive so many letters, how many must the members of the Working Committee be receiving? These correspondents should know that I take no interest in these elections, I do not attend meetings at which these applications are considered and that I often only know from newspapers who have been elected. It is on rare occasions that my advice is sought as to the choice to be made. But I write this more to draw attention to the disease of which these applications are a sign than to warn my correspondents against building any expectation of my intervention. It is wrong to think communally in such elections, it is wrong to think that anyone is good enough for the Constituent Assembly, it is altogether wrong to think that the election carries any honour with it, it is a post of service if one is fitted for the labours and, lastly, it is wrong to regard the post as one for making a few rupees while the Assembly lasts. The Constituent Assembly should have such members only who know something about constitutions the entire world over, above, all, about the constitution that India’s genius demands. It is debasing to think that true service consists in getting a seat in the Assembly. True service lies outside. The field of service outside is limitless. In the fight for independence, the Assembly, like the one in course of formation, has a place. Nevertheless it is a very small place and that too if we use it wisely and well; certainly not, if there is a scramble for a seat in it. The scramble warrants the fear that it may become a hunting ground for place-seekers. I am free to confess that a Constituent Assembly is the logical outcome of parliamentary activity. The labour of the late Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das and Pandit Motilal Nehru opened my eyes to the fact that the parliamentary programme had a place in the national activity for independence. I strove hard against it. It is certainly inconsistent with pure non-cooperation. But pure non-co-operation never held the field. What came into being also waned? Had there been universal non-co-operation of the non-violent type in the Congress ranks, there would have been no parliamentary programme. Non-violent non-co-operation with evil means co-operation with all that is good. Therefore, non-violent non-co-operation with a foreign government necessarily means an indigenous government based on non-violence. Had there been such complete non-co-operation, there would be swaraj today based on non-violence. But this never happened. In the circumstances it would have been vain to struggle against what the nation had been familiar with and from which it could not be completely weaned. The parliamentary step having been taken, it would have been improper to boycott the present effort. But that does not, can never, mean that there should be indecent competition for filling the seats in it. Let us recognize the limitations.

Harijan, 28-7-1946

Q. Whilst the food policy was in the hands of the Advisors to the Provincial Governors, there was no effective method of checking them. Things under the responsible Provincial Governments are different. Should it not be a matter of conscience with Congress ministers to get their rations from common rationing depots and take not a grain more from any other source? This will immediately have a far-reaching effect. Today all controlling centres for food grains or cloth have public dens for thieving and corruption. Equipped with the moral force that the ministers will gain by acting as suggested, they will be able to fight out the evil with success.

A. This question is a consolidation of many letters of com- plaints. I wholly agree with the suggestion made in the question. I fancy that the suggested practice is already being observed, not only by the ministers but all other Government servants. I do not know of any other source save the black market for getting supplies of foodstuffs. Of course, no exhortation can take the place of persons in authority setting a good example. If they took their rations from the same stock as is given to the public, the keepers of stores will soon find that it would not pay to dole out rotten stuff to the public. The practice of the ministers and other high-placed men in England taking their things in common with the public is, I am told, the usual thing, as it should be.

Harijan, 4-8-1946

Q. 1. In this ideal State (there is no doubt that it is ideal) how can one be sure that outside aggression can be avoided? If the State has no modern army with modern weapons which are the product of the machine age, an invading army with modern weapons could overrun the country and subject and inhabitants to slavery.

A. The questioner, who claims to have read and reread my article carefully and says he has liked it and is a military man, has evidently missed the central point of my article, viz., that however small a nation or even a group may be, it is able, even as the individual, provided that it has one mind as also the will and the grit, to defend its honour and self-respect against a whole world in arms. Therein consists the matchless strength and beauty of the unarmed. That is non-violent defence which neither knows nor accepts defeat at any stage. Therefore, a nation or a group which has made nonviolence its final policy cannot be subjected to slavery even by the atom bomb.

Q. 2. India at the present time cannot grow enough food for its population. To buy food from abroad, India must sell other goods to pay for it, and in order to sell such goods, India must produce at competitive prices which, in my opinion, cannot be done without modern machines. How can this be done, unless the machine replaces manual labour?

A. The statement in the first sentence of the question is wholly wrong. I hold, in spite of opinions expressed to the contrary, that India is able at the present moment to grow enough food. I have previously stated the condition for growing enough food, viz., that the Government at the head should be National and a Government that knows its business and is capable of dealing sternly with all profiteering, black-marketing and, worst of all, laziness of mind and body. The second part of the question really falls to the ground if my answer to the first is correct. But for the sake of dismissing the plea on behalf of modern machines as against human labour of which there is plenty in a land like India, I would say that if all the able-bodied millions work with one mind and with zeal, they could complete on their own terms with any nation, however well-equipped it may be with modern machines. The questioner should not forget that modern machines have up till now gone side by side with the exploitation of the machine less nations, dubbed weak. I use the participle ‘dubbed’ because they will refuse to be weak immediately they realize the fact that they are even at the present moment stronger than the nations equipped with the most modern weapons and machinery.

Q. You will perhaps agree that in spite of considerable publicity, spinning and weaving have not yet found favour with the public to the extent to which they should have done.

I think if every Congress Committee at least those of the big cities starts a sort of coaching-class for the public for this purpose, it can do immense good. Many people particularly the poor do not take to spinning because they do not know spinning and weaving, what type of wheels are more convenient to use and give greater output, how these are properly operated, how best they should dispose of or utilize the yarn thus produced, etc. If once or twice a week, some such classes are undertaken after proper publicity and people are instructed in this technique by practical demonstrations, things should improve much. At least the experiment is worth a trial by the Congress. Even if regular classes are not held but a group or groups of experts of this technique undertake a tour and give demonstrations and instruction to the public for some days in each city, it can serve the purpose to a considerable extent. Questions like the above often come to me from Congressmen. Since this is exhaustive, I reproduce it as it is. The signature is undecipherable. Therefore, I am unable to say to which province the questioner belongs. Surely it would have been appropriate if the writer had been good enough to frame his letter in Hindustani. The vast mass of Congressmen who are not on the Congress register but who are more Congressmen than the registered ones, do not know English and those who do, careless for spinning than for being on the Congress register for reasons they know and which I need not specify. There is, however, a great deal in what the writer says. If all Congress offices became institutions for teaching the art of spinning from the anterior and posterior processes right up to the manufacture of khadi, I am quite clear that the face of the villages would be changed and swaraj would be ushered in through the effort of the masses. I have shown in these columns how it will be ushered in. These lines are written to emphasize the point made by the correspondent.

Harijan, 18-8-1946