{"id":2021,"date":"2013-07-13T01:38:58","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=2021"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:38:58","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:38:58","slug":"73-a-practicable-boycott-vol-08-karmayogin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-cwsa\/08-karmayogin\/73-a-practicable-boycott-vol-08-karmayogin","title":{"rendered":"-73_A Practicable Boycott.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tA
\nPracticable Boycott <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tBOYCOTT is an ideal, like freedom; it means independence in
\nindustry and commerce, as freedom means independence in administration,
\nlegislation and finance. But it is not always possible to accomplish the whole of
\nthe ideal by the first effort towards it. So long as we cherish the ideal whole
\nand unbroken, we are at liberty to consult the demands of practicability and
\nrealise it, not at one rush, but by successive approximations, each being the
\nvantage-ground for a fresh rush forward. This does not imply slow progress, the
\nleisurely and gentlemanlike spreading out of the struggle for freedom through
\n\t\t\tfive
\nor six centuries in order to avoid the perils of the struggle; it is rather the
\nnecessary condition of rapid progress. The force of the hunger for the whole
\nideal, of impatience with half realisations must remain behind, but the means
\nof each advance must be secured by that which went before. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tWhen the boycott
\nmovement first began, it was the opinion of Mr. Tilak and other Nationalist
\nleaders that the exclusion of foreign goods should be directed against British
\nproducts first of all. The immediate exclusion of all foreign goods was
\nobviously impracticable. But very soon it became evident that the voice of the
\nwhole nation in Bengal and Maharashtra was for the more comprehensive movement,
\nand the leaders wisely put aside their own opinion and made themselves simply
\nexecutors of the national will. Wisely, because at such times there is
\n\t\t\tsomething divinely inspired in the motions of the national mind
\n\t\t\twhich exceeds the
\nhuman wisdom and statecraft of the individual. It was and remains true that the
\nexclusion of all foreign goods is an impracticable measure in the present
\neconomical condition of India. But the comprehensive boycott movement was
\nnecessary, \u2013first, in order that the ideal might be stamped deep into
\n\t\t\tthe consciousness of the people; and that has been done by the<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-396<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t  <\/font><\/i>very
\nacts of repression which were largely designed, as admitted by Mr. Hobhouse, to
\ncrush the Swadeshi Boycott movement; \u2013secondly, 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 life had induced. That work also is
\ndone. The idea of Swadeshi has entered into the very marrow of our thought and
\nfeeling. It is therefore time now to consider the practical measures by which
\n\t\t\tboycott may be made gradually and steadily successful. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tBoycott is essentially a
\nform of voluntary protection and it cannot do more than protection does towards
\nthe creation of industries. Protection serves two ends; it prevents the
\n\t\t\tinfant industry from being strangled in its weak unestablished state by full-grown
\nand powerful 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
\ndisadvantage into the scale of the more favourably circumstanced competing
\ncountry. This is the limit of the utility of protection; it is also the limit of
\nthe utility of boycott. What boycott could do for the cloth industry, it has
\ndone, but for the producer to lean entirely on boycott and expect it to take the
\nplace of business enterprise, energy, capacity, the improvement of his goods, is
\nto lay a burden on the national spirit which it is neither possible nor desirable
\nthat it should bear. The nation agrees to purchase an inferior indigenous article
\nin place of a superior foreign article, not with the intention that the
\nproducer should be excused the necessity of improvement and should be able to
\nforce the inferior article on us to all eternity, but solely to give him time
\n\t\t\tto improve his methods, his processes, his machinery, his dexterity
\n\t\t\tin spite of
\nthe competition of his superior rival. It saves him from extinction, it gives him
\na period of grace; he must use it to reach and outdistance the excellence of his
\nrival's methods and production, and if he neglects this duty he does it at his
\nperil and it is not open to him to cry out against the want of patriotism<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-397<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

in
\nthe people because they withdraw a support which he has abused. The nation,
\nagain, agrees to deny itself necessaries or restrict the quantity of its
\npurchase, not with the intention of permanently lowering its standard of comfort
\nand living a barer and more meagre life, but in order to give time for capital
\n\t\t\tand enterprise to increase the supply, so that eventually the wants
\n\t\t\tof the nation
\nmay be supplied from within. If it is found that there is not an expansion of
\nindustry commensurate with the self-denial in the nation and that only a few
\nbusinessmen are exploiting the national sentiment for their own personal profit,
\nit is idle to expect the boycott to survive. We have noticed signs of a most
\nunhealthy spirit of mutual trade jealousy among Swadeshi mill-owners, who seem to
\nbe under the impression that they are natural rivals for the patronage of the
\nconsumer. No single Indian producer can monopolise the supply necessary for
\n\t\t\tnational consumption, nor can even the whole body of Indian
\n\t\t\tproducers combined, at
\npresent, meet the demand. One Indian mill-owner gets nothing by the decline of
\nanother; on the contrary, his prosperity is bound up in the prosperity of all
\nother Indian mills; for the maintenance of the boycott, which saved the mill
\n\t\t\tindustry at a crisis of its destinies, depends on the increased supply of Swadeshi
\ncloth. Instead of attempting to rise by pressing each other down, it would be far
\nbetter for the Indian producers to follow the example of English manufacturers
\nand combine for the welfare of the national industry. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe first condition of a
\nsuccessful boycott, therefore, is the organisation of national industry with a
\nview, first, to the improvement and extension of that which exists, secondly,
\nto the opening up of new lines of enterprise. This is largely a work for the
\nproducer himself, but there is one duty which the leaders of the national
\nmovement can perform and that is to organise information. The nature of the
\nindustries that can be profitably opened in India, the unfavourable
\ncircumstances, the favourable, the means of obviating or mitigating the former,
\nutilising and improving the latter, the conditions of success, the cost of
\nout-lay and management, this is the information that capital and enterprise need;
\nthe Swadeshi articles that can be procured, the<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-398<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

place
\nof their manufacture, their price, quality and supply, this is the information
\nneeded by the consumer. To organise all this information would be to give a great
\nstimulus to the advance of Swadeshi. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe second condition of a successful boycott
\nis the organisation of supply. It is not possible for everyone to hunt
\nSwadeshi articles to their source and purchase them. There must be a sup-plying
\nagency which brings the goods to a near and convenient market and, as far as
\npossible, to the doors of the people. The difficulty of supply is grievously felt
\nin many parts of Bengal; but there is no one whose duty it is to consider the
\n\t\t\tdifficulty and meet it. Swadeshi is in danger of being stifled under
\n\t\t\tthe mass of
\nspurious goods, foreign masking as indigenous, which the dishonest methods of
\nEuropean commerce pour into the country. There is no one to consider the problem
\nof baffling this flank attack and devise methods of assuring the consumer that
\n\t\t\the gets the article which he wants. The organisation of a genuine
\n\t\t\tand sufficient
\nsupply is the second condition of a practicable boycott. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThese measures will help
\nthe growth of Swadeshi, but by themselves they can only partially serve the wider
\nnational aim which is the heart of the great movement commenced in 1905,the
\nindustrial independence of the Indian people. There is no doubt that the great
\nmass of the Indian people cherish this aspiration and would willingly follow any
\npracticable means of bringing it into the list of accomplished ideals. Previous
\n\t\t\tto the great movement in Bengal this idea had been twice put into
\n\t\t\tmotion and
\nproduced a certain result, but the idea then was absolute abstention from all
\npurchase of articles not genuinely Indian. Such a self-denial may be possible for
\nthe individual, it is not possible for great masses of men. The good sense of
\n\t\t\tthe nation therefore qualified the vow of abstinence by the proviso
\n\t\t\tthat it should
\nbe "as far as 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 has been made to define it.
\n\t\t\tThe boycott of cloth, salt and sugar was made absolute; machinery,<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-399<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

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 hopelessly
\n\t\t\tbroken down, the boycott of cloth has had a partial success qualified
\n\t\t\tby the
\nnecessity of taking yarn for Swadeshi cloth from England. Amore practical
\ndefinition is necessary. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe first principle we would suggest is to make a clear
\ndivision between articles of necessity, interpreting the word in abroad sense,
\nand articles of luxury and to have an absolute interdict of the latter unless
\nthey are of indigenous manufacture. The first reason for the interdict is that
\nmany articles of luxury are produced in India, but find it difficult to maintain
\n\t\t\tthemselves because they depend on the patronage of the rich, who are
\n\t\t\twedded to
\nEuropean vulgarity and want of taste in the appointments of their life. The
\npoorer classes cannot indulge in luxuries; the middle class, in the present
\ncondition of the country, should not. An organised preference of Swadeshi arts
\nand crafts by the rich would revive and stimulate a great source of national
\nwealth and reopen a field of national capacity. Articles of necessity can
\n\t\t\tbe divided into those indispensable for life and a decent existence
\n\t\t\tand those
\nnecessary for our work and business. In the former we can always prefer an
\ninferior but usable indigenous article, in the latter no such self-denying
\nordinance can be imposed. I cannot be called upon to use an article or implement
\n\t\t\twhich cripples my business or puts me at a serious disadvantage with
\n\t\t\tmy
\ncompetitor, merely because it is produced in the country, just as in my own home
\nI cannot be called upon to use a pen which will not write, a lamp which will not
\ngive light, a cup which cracks and breaks after a few days' use. But if the home
\n\t\t\tarticle is usable or if the business implement is only slightly
\n\t\t\tinferior to its
\nforeign rival, then it would be unpatriotic and a violation of the boycott oath
\nto prefer the foreign to the indigenous production. On these lines we believe a
\nrational and workable meaning could be put on the proviso "as far as possible"
\nwhich would not put too great a strain on human nature and could yet form the
\nbasis of an effective and practical protection of Indian<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-400<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tindustry.
\nA similar concession would have to be made in the case of Swadeshi articles which
\nare too dear for the purse of the poorer classes, but there is no reason why the
\nricher members of the community should not extend their protection to
\n\t\t\tthose industries which are compelled for the present to exceed
\n\t\t\tgreatly the foreign
\ncost of production and yet have a future before them. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tIt will be evident
\ntherefore that, however far we may carry the boycott individually, there are
\nlimits which the mass of men cannot exceed. A considerable number of foreign
\narticles must be purchased even for home consumption, still more for work and
\nbusiness. The question is, cannot this inevitable resort to the foreigner be so
\nregulated as to assist materially the progress of the boycott and prepare the
\nfuture industrial independence of the nation? This is the subject we propose to
\nconsider in our next issue.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tPage-401<\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\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":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-08-karmayogin","wpcat-44-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2021","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=2021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}