Foreign Cloth Boycott

Out of regard for the sentiment of an English friend, the word ‘boycott’ has been changed into ‘refusal to use foreign cloth’. There is not doubt a bad odor about the word ‘boycott’. It usually implies hatred. So far as I am concerned, I have not intended the word to bear any such meaning. The boycott has reference not to British but to foreign cloth. That boycott is not merely a right but a duty. It is as much a duty as boycott of foreign waters would be if they were imported to substitute the waters of the Indian rivers. This, however, is a digression.

An Effective Substitute

For me, it is an effective substitute for violent methods. Just as certain acts, such as abuse, irritating conduct, lying, causing hurt, and murder are symbols of violence, similarly courtesy, inoffensive conduct, truthfulness etc. are symbols of non-violence. And so to me is boycott of foreign cloth a symbol of non-violence. Revolutionary crime is intended to exert pressure. But it is the insane pressure of anger and ill-will. I contend that non-violent acts exert pressure far more effective than violent acts, for that pressure comes from goodwill and gentleness. Boycott of foreign cloth exerts such pressure. We import the largest amount of foreign cloth from Lancashire. It is also by far the largest of all our imports, sugar being the next. Britain’s chief interest centers round the Lancashire trade with India. It is the one thing more than any other that has ruined the Indian peasant, and imposed partial idleness upon him by depriving him of the one supplementary occupation he had. Boycott of foreign cloth is, therefore, a necessity if he is to live. The plan, therefore, is not merely to induce the peasant to refuse to buy the cheap and nice-looking foreign fabric, but also by teaching him to utilize his spare hours in carding and spinning cotton and getting it woven by the village weavers, to dress himself in Khaddar so woven and thus to save him the cost of buying foreign and, for that matter, even Indian mill-made cloth.

Thus, boycott of foreign cloth by means of hand-spinning and hand-weaving, i.e., Khaddar, not only saves the peasant’s money, but it enables us workers to render social service of a first class order. It brings us into direct touch with the villagers. It enables us to give them real political education and teach them to become self-sustained and self-reliant. Organization of Khaddar is thus infinitely better than co-operative societies or any other form of village organization. It is fraught with the highest political consequence, because it removes the greatest immoral temptation from Britain’s way. I call the Lancashire trade immoral, because it was raised and is sustained on the ruin of millions of India’s peasants. And as one immorality leads to another, the many proved immoral acts of Britain are traceable to this one immoral traffic. If, therefore, this one great temptation is removed from Britain’s path by India’s voluntary effort, it would be good for India, good for Britain, and, as Britain is today the predominant world power, good even for humanity.

It is, then, I hold, the duty of Great Britain to regulate her exports with due regard to the welfare of India, as it is India’s to regulate her imports with due regard to her own welfare. That economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values. The extension of the Law of Non-violence in the domain of economics means nothing less than the introduction of moral values as a factor to be considered in regulating international commerce. And I must confess that my ambition is nothing les than to see international relations placed on a moral basis through India’s efforts, I do not despair of cultivation of limited mass non-violence. I refuse to believe that the tendency of human nature is always downward.

The fruition of the boycott of foreign cloth through hand-spinning and Khaddar is calculated not only to bring about a political result of the first magnitude, it is calculated also to make the poorest of India, whether men or women, conscious of their strength and make them partakers in the struggle for India’s freedom.

It is hardly necessary now to demonstrate the futility, not to say the violent nature, of boycott of British cloth or, better still, British goods, as so many patriots have suggested. I am considering the boycott purely from the point of view of India’s good. All British goods do not harm us. Some goods, such as English books, we need for our intellectual of spiritual benefit. As regards to cloth, it is not merely British cloth that harms us, that all foreign cloth, and, for that matter, to a lesser extent even mill-made cloth injures us. Boycott brought about anyhow of British cloth cannot yield the same results as such boycott brought about by hand-spinning and Khaddar. This necessitates exclusion at least of all foreign cloth. The exclusion is not intended as a punishment. It is a necessity of national existence.