“The Swadeshi movement in this country, if combined with the driving force ol boycott, whatever effect it may have on the political relations between the British and Indian peoples, is bound, in our view, to accelerate the industrial development of the country. We go further and hold that Swadeshi and Boycott are indispensable factors to produce the economic revolution in the country necessary to ensure its material prosperity, labouring as we do under the disabilities attendant upon a foreign political domination”.
JULY 9, 1907
Economic boycott
IT IS COMMONLY ASSERTED AND BELIEVED IN BY NOT A FEW OF our public men, that boycott of British or foreign goods is a weapon to be used for political purposes, that it is a means of propagating race hatred, and that under the peculiar circumstances of this country, this weapon of hate, as it is termed, ought not to be had recourse to by the people. It is argued that if boycott is the instrument by which you are to wring political concessions from the rulers of the country, it is bound to raise angry passions, and that it must be kept in reserve in order to be employed on extreme occasions only. It is maintained by those who support the adoption of the boycott in its full length, that the administration of the country has arrived at such a pass, that recourse to it is justifiable under existing circumstances. Without discussing this aspect of the question, it seems to us that it may most reasonably be maintained that the economic regeneration of the country will be greatly advanced by adopting the system of boycott of British and foreign goods. The late Mr. Justice Ranade observed at an Industrial Conference held at Poona, that “the political domination of one country by another attracts far more attention than the more formidable, though unfelt, domination, which the capital, enterprise and skill of one country, exercise over the trade and manufactures of another. This latter domination has an insidious influence which paralyses the springs of all the varied activities which together make up the life of a nation.” That the people of this country are at the present moment affected injuriously by the evils of a political domination as well as by the evils arising from the more potent and insidious economic foreign domination needs no demonstration. The Swadeshi movement in this country, if combined with the driving force of boycott, whatever effect it may have on the political relations between the British and the Indian peoples, is bound, in our view, to accelerate the industrial development of the country. We go further and hold that Swadeshi and Boycott are indispensable factors to produce the economic revolution in the country necessary to ensure its material prosperity, labouring as we do, under the disabilities attendant upon a foreign political domination. In an article on “Government and Industrial Development” published in its issue of Friday last, the Pioneer says:-“In considering the administrative action of Government, we may safely discard the idea of a protective tariff. It is true that a long series of English economists have justified protection for starting new industries; it is true that almost any colonial, American, or continental statesman would unhesitatingly prescribe a tariff as the first step to be taken; and it is probably true that a moderate tariff would be the most popular measure that could be introduced in the Legislative Council. But it is also true that the English Government English Government of the time is not prepared to consider the possibility of protection in any shape or form.” The truth of these observations is undeniable, only, the Pioneer affects to throw the blame on the Liberal Government, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Conservative Government, which was in power till 18 months ago, preserved the same attitude and it was the late Marquis of Salisbury, when Secretary of State for India, that directed the repeal of the cotton import duties. Why should the people of India, as stated by the Pioneer, discard the idea of a protective tariff? If the Government of this country is carried on for the benefit of the people, as pompously proclaimed by Mr. Morley in his Budget speech, and if the opinions of a long series of English economists and of the people of the country are in favour of a protective tariff, why does the Government shrink from imposing it? The answer obviously is that it fears to offend the British merchants whose pockets will suffer by the proposed restriction. The British people did not hesitate to prohibit the importation of Indian goods into England when they affected the sale of British goods of similar kind in the market. During the time of the East India Company, Indian silks, cotton and other articles were imported into England and were preferred to the British made goods for their quality and price. The British merchants became exasperated at this and in consequence of their agitation, the British Parliament passed an Act by which it was enacted, that “from and after the 29th day of September 1701, all bought silks, angolas and stuffs mixed with silk or herbs of manufacture of China, Persia, or the East Indies, and all calicoes painted, dyed, printed or stained there, which are, or shall be, imported into this kingdom, shall not be worn or otherwise used in Great Britain, and all goods imported after that date shall be warehoused or exported again.” In 1775, a Patriotic Society was formed in Edinburgh as a protest against the fashion of wearing Indian cotton apparel. The object of that Society was to boycott every man associated with the ladies wearing it. These facts are sufficiently eloquent and as a writer in the Hindustan Review observes, “let our Anglo-Indian critics who find fault with the Bengal movement, ponder over these enactments and resolutions.” The matter, however, is clearly set forth by James Mill in his history of India, where he writes of this subject, as follows:
It was stated in evidence that the cotton and silk goods of India up to this period (1815) could be sold for a profit in the English market at a price from 50 to 60 per cent, lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70 or 80 per cent, on their value or by positive prohibition. Had not this been the case, the mills of Manchester and Paisley would have stopped at the outset and could scarcely have been in motion even by the power of steam. They were created at the sacrifice of Indian manufacturers. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated. This act of self-defence was not permitted her. British goods were forced on her without paying any duty and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not have contended on equal terms.
The italics are ours, though even without them, the sense of James Mill’s words cannot be missed. The facts above referred to prove conclusively that in the early days of England’s connection with India, the British trade in certain textile fabrics was in danger of losing ground in competition with Indian-made goods. English public opinion, therefore, rose against the imminent peril. Boycott Societies were formed to keep out the Indian goods and the British Parliament solemnly passed an Act prohibiting the importation of Indian goods into England.
The people of India need not complain that the British merchants of those days looked after their interests so keenly, watchfully and well that they took effective measures to protect their interests even, when by so doing, they put the Indian merchants at a great disadvantage.
The situation then created was one of economic and financial independence between the people of Great Britain and the people of India. If this position had been consistently maintained in all the subsequent dealings between the two peoples, Indian commerce and industries would not be in the miserable condition in which they are now. When the interests of the British merchants were endangered by the competition of the Indian merchants in England, the Government and the people of England with united strength erected a wall of protective tariff around their country rigidly shutting out the importation of Indian goods. But when the British goods at a subsequent period were poured into India and swamped the already decaying Indian trade, the Government of England used, as James Mill terms it, the arm of political injustice to throw freely open the ports of India to the goods of British merchants, and helped to smother and almost to extinguish Indian trade in cotton goods.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I