{"id":1073,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:23","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1073"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:23","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:23","slug":"64-a-practicable-boycott-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/02-karmayogin-volume-02\/64-a-practicable-boycott-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-64_A Practicable Boycott.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n


\nA Practicable Boycott<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nB<\/b><\/font>oycott<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/span> <\/span><\/font><\/span><\/b>
\nis an
\nideal, like freedom; it means independence in industry and commerce, as freedom
\nmeans independence in administration, legislation and finance. But it is not
\nalways possible to accomplish the whole of the ideal by the first effort
\ntowards it. So long as we cherish the ideal whole and unbroken, we are at
\nliberty to consult the demands of practicability and realise it, not at one
\nrush, but by successive approximations, each being the vantage-ground for a
\nfresh rush forward. This does not imply slow progress, the leisurely and
\ngentleman-like spreading out of the struggle for freedom through five or six
\ncenturies in order to avoid the perils of the struggle; it
\nis rather the necessary condition of rapid progress. The force of the hunger
\nfor the whole ideal, of impatience with half realisations must remain behind,
\nbut the means of each advance must be secured by that which went before.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

When the boycott movement first began, it was the opinion of Mr. Tilak and other Nationalist leaders that the
\nexclusion of foreign goods should be directed against British products first of
\nall. The immediate exclusion of all foreign goods was obviously impracticable.
\nBut very soon it became evident that the voice of the whole nation in Bengal
\nand Maharashtra was for the more
\ncomprehensive movement, and the leaders wisely put aside their own opinion and
\nmade themselves simply executors of the national will. Wisely, because at such
\ntimes there is something divinely inspired in the motions of the national mind
\nwhich exceeds the human wisdom and statecraft of the individual. It was and
\nremains true that the exclusion of all foreign goods is an impracticable
\nmeasure in the present economical condition of India. But the comprehensive
\nboycott movement was necessary, \u2014 first, in order that the ideal might be
\nstamped deep into the consciousness of the people;
\nand that has been done by the very acts of repression which were largely
\ndesigned, as admitted by Mr. Hobhouse, to
\ncrush the Swadeshi Boycott movement;<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 347<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u2014<\/font><\/span><\/i> secondly, in order that the idea of
\nIndia’s separate and self-sufficient existence as a nation might thoroughly
\nreplace the habit of dependence and contented economical servitude which English
\neducation and the effacement of political
\nlife had induced. That work also is done. The idea of Swadeshi has entered into
\nthe very marrow of our thought and feeling. It is therefore time now to
\nconsider the practical measures by which boycott may be made gradually and
\nsteadily successful.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Boycott is essentially a form of voluntary protection and it cannot
\ndo more than protection does towards the creation of industries. Protection
\nserves two ends; it prevents the infant industry from being strangled in its
\nweak unestablished state by full-grown and
\npowerful competitors, it gives a stimulus to it by assuring it a market. It
\ncannot supply the place of enterprise, business capacity, naturally favourable
\nconditions. It can however mitigate the incidence of natural conditions, not
\nentirely but comparatively unfavourable, by throwing a countervailing disadvantage
\ninto the scale of the more favourably circumstanced competing country. This is
\nthe limit of the utility of protection; it
\nis also the limit of the utility of boycott. What boycott could do for the
\ncloth industry, it has done, but for the producer to lean entirely on boycott
\nand expect it to take the place of business enterprise, energy, capacity, the
\nimprovement of his goods, is to lay a burden on the national spirit which it is
\nneither possible nor desirable that it should bear. The nation agrees to
\npurchase an inferior indigenous article in place of a superior foreign article,
\nnot with the intention that the producer should be excused the necessity of
\nimprovement and should be able to force the inferior article on us to all
\neternity, but solely to give him time to improve his methods, his processes,
\nhis machinery, his dexterity in spite of the competition of his superior rival.
\nIt saves him from extinction, it gives him a period of grace; he must use it to
\nreach and outdistance the excellence of his rival’s methods and production,
\nand if he neglects this duty he does it at his peril and it is not open to him
\nto cry out against the want of patriotism in the people because they withdraw a
\nsupport which he has abused. The nation, again, agrees to deny itself
\nnecessaries or restrict the quantity of its purchase, not with the intention of
\npermanently<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 348<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

lowering
\nits standard of comfort and living a barer and more meagre life, but in order
\nto give time for capital and enterprise to increase the supply, so that
\neventually the wants of the nation may be supplied from within. If it is found
\nthat there is not an expansion of industry commensurate with the self-denial in
\nthe nation and that only a few businessmen are exploiting the national
\nsentiment for their own personal profit, it is idle to expect the boycott to
\nsurvive. We have noticed signs of a most unhealthy spirit of mutual trade
\njealousy among Swadeshi mill-owners, who seem to be under the impression that
\nthey are natural rivals for the patronage of the consumer. No single Indian
\nproducer can monopolise the supply necessary for national consumption, nor can
\neven the whole body of Indian producers combined, at present, meet the demand.
\nOne Indian mill-owner gets nothing by the decline of another; on the contrary, his prosperity is bound up in
\nthe prosperity of all other Indian mills; for
\nthe maintenance of the boycott, which saved the mill industry at a crisis of
\nits destinies, depends on the increased supply of Swadeshi cloth. Instead of attempting to rise by pressing
\neach other down, it would be far better for the Indian producers to follow the
\nexample of English manufacturers and combine for the welfare of the national
\nindustry.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The first condition of a successful boycott, therefore, is the
\norganisation of national industry with a view, first, to the improvement and
\nextension of that which exists, secondly, to the opening up of new lines of
\nenterprise. This is largely a work for the producer himself, but there is one
\nduty which the leaders of the national movement can perform and that is to organise information. The nature of the industries that can be profitably
\nopened in India, the unfavourable circumstances, the favourable, the means of
\nobviating or mitigating the former, utilising and improving the latter, the
\nconditions of success, the cost of outlay and management, this is the
\ninformation that capital and enterprise need;
\nthe Swadeshi articles that can be procured, the place of their manufacture,
\ntheir price, quality and supply, this is the information needed by the
\nconsumer. To organise all this information would be to give a great stimulus
\nto the advance of Swadeshi.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 349<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

The second condition of a successful boycott is the organisation of
\nsupply. It is not possible for everyone to hunt Swadeshi articles to their
\nsource and purchase them. There must be a supplying agency which brings the
\ngoods to a near and convenient market and, as far as possible, to the doors of
\nthe people. The difficulty of supply is grievously felt in many parts of
\nBengal; but
\nthere is no one whose duty it is to consider the difficulty and meet it.
\nSwadeshi is in danger of being stifled under the mass of spurious goods,
\nforeign masking as indigenous, which the dishonest methods of European
\nCommerce pour into the country. There is no one to consider the problem of
\nbaffling this flank attack and devise methods of assuring the consumer that he
\ngets the article which he wants. The organisation of a genuine and sufficient
\nsupply is the second condition of a practicable boycott.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

These measures will help the growth of Swadeshi, but by themselves
\nthey can only partially serve the wider national aim which is the heart of the
\ngreat movement commenced in 1905, the industrial independence of the Indian
\npeople. There is no doubt that the great mass of the Indian people cherish this
\naspiration and would willingly follow any practicable means of bringing it
\ninto the list of accomplished ideals. Previous to the great movement in Bengal
\nthis idea had been twice put into motion and produced a certain result, but the
\nidea then was absolute abstention from all purchase of articles not genuinely
\nIndian. Such a self-denial may be possible for the individual, it is not
\npossible for great masses of men. The good sense of the nation therefore
\nqualified the vow of abstinence by the proviso that it should be "as far
\nas possible". This, however, is a vague and fluid phrase. It has to be
\nmade precise if the movement is to advance from its purely idealistic character
\nand put on the garb of practicability. Some attempt had been made to define it.
\nThe boycott of cloth, salt and sugar was made absolute; machinery, medicines,
\nobjects of art and literature were exempted. But this was largely an empirical
\ndivision based neither on a consideration of immediate possibility, nor on a
\nreasoned policy. As a matter of fact the boycott of foreign sugar has
\nhopelessly broken down, the boycott of cloth has had a partial success
\nqualified by the necessity of<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 350<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

taking
\nyarn for Swadeshi cloth from England. A more practical definition is
\nnecessary.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The first principle we would suggest is to make a clear division between articles of necessity,
\ninterpreting the word in a broad sense, and articles of luxury and to have an
\nabsolute interdict of the latter unless they are of indigenous manufacture.
\nThe first reason for the interdict is that many articles of luxury are produced
\nin India, but find it difficult to maintain themselves because they depend on
\nthe patronage of the rich, who are wedded to European vulgarity and want of
\ntaste in the appointments of their life. The poorer classes cannot indulge in
\nluxuries; the
\nmiddle class, in the present condition of the country, should not. An organised
\npreference of Swadeshi arts and crafts by the rich would revive and stimulate a
\ngreat source of national wealth and reopen a field of national capacity.
\nArticles of necessity can be divided into those indispensable for life and a
\ndecent existence and those necessary for our work and business. In the former
\nwe can always prefer an inferior but usable indigenous article, in the latter
\nno such self-denying ordinance can be imposed. I cannot be called upon to use
\nan article or implement which cripples my business or puts me at a serious
\ndisadvantage with my competitor, merely because it is produced in the country,
\njust as in my own home I cannot be called upon to use a pen which will not
\nwrite, a lamp which will not give light, a cup which cracks and breaks after a
\nfew days’ use. But if the home article is usable or if the business implement
\nis only slightly inferior to its foreign rival, then it would be unpatriotic
\nand a violation of the boycott oath to prefer the foreign to the indigenous
\nproduction. On these lines we believe a rational and workable meaning could be
\nput on the proviso "as far as possible" which would not put too great
\na strain on human nature and could yet form the basis of an effective and
\npractical protection of Indian industry. A similar concession would have to be
\nmade in the case of Swadeshi articles which are too dear for the purse of the
\npoorer classes, but there is no reason why the richer members of the community
\nshould not extend their protection to those industries which are compelled for
\nthe present to exceed greatly the foreign cost of production and yet have a
\nfuture before them.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 351<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

It will be evident therefore that, however far we may carry the
\nboycott individually, there are limits which the mass of men cannot exceed. A
\nconsiderable number of foreign articles must be purchased even for home
\nconsumption, still more for work and business. The question is, cannot this
\ninevitable resort to the foreigner be so regulated as to assist materially the
\nprogress of the boycott and prepare the future industrial independence of the
\nnation ? This is the subject we propose to consider in our next issue.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Page \u2013 352<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n
\nHOME<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Practicable Boycott   Boycott is an ideal, like freedom; it means independence in industry and commerce, as freedom means independence in administration, legislation and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-02-karmayogin-volume-02","wpcat-23-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}