My knowledge of the technicality of co-operation is next to
nothing. My brother, Devadhar, has made the subject his own. Whatever he does,
naturally attracts me and predisposes me to think that there must be something
good in it and the handling of it must be fairly difficult. Mr. Ewbank very
kindly placed at my disposal some literature too on the subject. And I have had
a unique opportunity of watching the effect of some co-operative effort in
Champaran. I have gone through Mr. Ewbank's ten main points which are like the
Commandments, and I have gone through the twelve points of Mr. Collins of
Behar, which remind me of the law of the Twelve Tables. There are so-called
agricultural banks in Champaran. They were to me disappointing efforts, if they
were meant to be demonstrations of the success of co-operation. On the other
hand, there is quiet work in the same direction being done by Mr. Hodge, a
missionary whose efforts are leaving their impress on those who come in contact
with him. Mr. Hodge is a co-operative enthusiast and probably considers that
the result which he sees flowing from his efforts are due to the working of
co-operation. I, who was able to watch the efforts, had no hesitation in
inferring that the personal equation counted for success in the one and failure
in the other instance.
I am an enthusiast myself, but twenty-five years of experimenting
and experience have made me a cautious and discriminating enthusiast. Workers
in a cause necessarily, though quite unconsciously, exaggerate its merits and
often succeed in turning its very defects into advantages. In spite of my
caution I consider the little institution I am conducting in Ahmedabad as the
finest thing in the world. It alone gives me sufficient inspiration. Critics
tell me that it represents a soulless soul-force and that its severe discipline
has made it merely mechanical. I suppose both—the critics and I—are wrong. It
is, at best, a humble attempt to place at the disposal of the nation a home
where men and women may have scope for free and unfettered development of
character, in keeping with the national genius, and, if its controllers do not
take care, the discipline that is the foundation of character may frustrate the
very end in view. I would venture, therefore, to warn enthusiasts in
co-operation against entertaining false hopes.
With Sir Daniel Hamilton it has become a religion. On the 13th
January last, he addressed the students of the Scottish Churches College and,
in order to point a moral, he instanced Scotland's poverty of two hundred years
ago and showed how that great country was raised from a condition of poverty to
plenty. "There were two powers, which raised her—the Scottish Church and
the Scottish banks. The Church manufactured the men and the banks manufactured
the money to give the men a start in life.... The Church disciplined the nation
in the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom and in the parish schools
of the Church the children learned that the chief end of man's life was to
glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever. Men were trained to believe in God and
in themselves, and on the trustworthy character so created the Scottish banking
system was built." Sir Daniel then shows that it was possible to build up
the marvellous Scottish banking system only on the character so built. So far
there can only be perfect agreement with Sir Daniel, for that 'without
character there is no co-operation' is a sound maxim. But he would have us go
much further. He thus waxes eloquent on co-operation: "Whatever may be
your daydreams of India's future, never forget this that it is to weld India
into one, and so enable her to take her rightful place in the world, that the
British Government is here; and the welding hammer in the hand of the
Government is the co-operative movement." In his opinion it is the panacea
of all the evils that afflict India at the present moment. In its extended
sense it can justify the claim on one condition which need not be mentioned
here; in the limited sense in which Sir Daniel has used it, I venture to think,
it is an enthusiast's exaggeration. Mark his peroration: "Credit, which is
only Trust and Faith, is becoming more and more the money power of the world,
and in the parchment bullet into which is impressed the faith which removes
mountains, India will find victory and peace." Here there is evident
confusion of thought. The credit which is becoming the money power of the world
has little moral basis and is not a synonym for Trust or Faith, which are
purely moral qualities. After twenty years' experience of hundreds of men, who
had dealings with banks in South Africa, the opinion I had so often heard
expressed has become firmly rooted in me, that the greater the rascal the
greater the credit he enjoys with his banks. The banks do not pry into his moral
character: they are satisfied that he meets his overdrafts and promissory notes
punctually. The credit system has encircled this beautiful globe of ours like a
serpent's coil, and if we do not mind, it bids fair to crush us out of breath.
I have witnessed the ruin of many a home through the system, and it has made no
difference whether the credit was labelled co-operative or otherwise. The
deadly coil has made possible the devastating spectacle in Europe, which we are
helplessly looking on. It was perhaps never so true as it is today that, as in
law so in war, the longest purse finally wins. I have ventured to give
prominence to the current belief about credit system in order to emphasise the
point that the co-operative movement will be a blessing to India only to the
extent that it is a moral movement strictly directed by men fired with
religious fervour. It follows, therefore, that co-operation should be confined
to men wishing to be morally right, but failing to do so, because of grinding
poverty or of the grip of the Mahajan. Facility for obtaining loans at fair
rates will not make immoral men moral. But the wisdom of the Estate or
philanthropists demands that they should help on the onward path, men
struggling to be good.
Too often do we believe that material prosperity means moral
growth. It is necessary that a movement which is fraught with so much good to
India should not degenerate into one for merely advancing cheap loans. I was
therefore delighted to read the recommendation in the Report of the Committee
on Co-operation in India, that "they wish clearly to express their opinion
that it is to true co-operation alone, that is, to a co-operation which
recognises the moral aspect of the question that Government must look for the
amelioration of the masses and not to a pseudo-co-operative edifice, however
imposing, which is built in ignorance of co-operative principles." With
this standard before us, we will not measure the success of the movement by the
number of co-operative societies formed, but by the moral condition of the
co-operators. The registrars will, in that event, ensure the moral growth of
existing societies before multiplying them. And the Government will make their
promotion conditional, not upon the number of societies they have registered,
but the moral success of the existing institutions. This will mean tracing the
course of every pie lent to the members. Those responsible for the proper
conduct of co-operative societies will see to it that the money advanced does
not find its way into the toddy-seller's bill or into the pockets of the
keepers of gambling dens. I would excuse the rapacity of the Mahajan if it has
succeeded in keeping the gambling die or toddy from the ryot's home.
A word perhaps about the Mahajan will not be out of place.
Co-operation is not a new device. The ryots co-operate to drum out monkeys or
birds that destroy their crops. They co-operate to use a common thrashing
floor. I have found them co-operate to protect their cattle to the extent of
their devoting the best land for the grazing of their cattle. And they have
been found co-operating against a particular rapacious Mahajan. Doubts have
been expressed as to the success of co-operation because of the tightness of
the Mahajan's hold on the ryots. I do not share the fears. The mightiest
Mahajan must, if he represent an evil force, bend before co-operation,
conceived as an essentially moral movement. But my limited experience of the
Mahajan of Champaran has made me revise the accepted opinion about his
'blighting influence.' I have found him to be not always relentless, not always
exacting of the last pie. He sometimes serves his clients in many ways and even
comes to their rescue in the hour of their distress. My observation is so
limited that I dare not draw any conclusions from it, but I respectfully
enquire whether it is not possible to make a serious effort to draw out the
good in the Mahajan and help him or induce him to throw out the evil in him.
May he not be induced to join the army of co-operation, or has experience
proved that he is past praying for?
I note that the movement takes note of all indigenous industries.
I beg publicly to express my gratitude to Government for helping me in my
humble effort to improve the lot of the weaver. The experiment I am conducting
shows that there is a vast field for work in this direction. No well-wisher of
India, no patriot dare look upon the impending destruction of the hand-loom
weaver with equanimity. As Dr. Mann has stated, this industry used to supply
the peasant with an additional source of livelihood and an insurance against
famine. Every registrar who will nurse back to life this important and graceful
industry will earn the gratitude of India. My humble effort consists firstly in
making researches as to the possibilities of simple reforms in the orthodox
hand-looms, secondly, in weaning the educated youth from the craving for
Government or other services and the feeling that education renders him unfit
for independent occupation and inducing him to take to weaving as a calling as
honourable as that of a barrister or a doctor, and thirdly by helping those
weavers who have abandoned their occupation to revert to it. I will not weary
the audience with any statement on the first two parts of the experiment. The
third may be allowed a few sentences as it has a direct bearing upon the
subject before us. I was able to enter upon it only six months ago. Five
families that had left off the calling have reverted to it and they are doing a
prosperous business. The Ashram supplies them at their door with the yarn they
need; its volunteers take delivery of the cloth woven, paying them cash at the
market rate. The Ashram merely loses interest on the loan advanced for the
yarn. It has as yet suffered no loss and is able to restrict its loss to a
minimum by limiting the loan to a particular figure. All future transactions
are strictly cash. We are able to command a ready sale for the cloth received.
The loss of interest, therefore, on the transaction is negligible. I would like
the audience to note its purely moral character from start to finish. The
Ashram depends for its existence on such help as friends render it. We,
therefore, can have no warrant for charging interest. The weavers could not be
saddled with it. Whole families that were breaking to pieces are put together
again. The use of the loan is pre-determined. And we, the middlemen, being
volunteers, obtain the privilege of entering into the lives of these families,
I hope, for their and our betterment. We cannot lift them without being lifted
ourselves. This last relationship has not yet been developed, but we hope, at
an early date, to take in hand the education too of these families and not rest
satisfied till we have touched them at every point. This is not too ambitious a
dream. God willing, it will be a reality some day. I have ventured to dilate
upon the small experiment to illustrate what I mean by co-operation to present
it to others for imitation. Let us be sure of our ideal. We shall ever fail to
realise it, but we should never cease to strive for it. Then there need be no
fear of "co-operation of scoundrels" that Ruskin so rightly dreaded.
….. By M. K. Gandhi
FOOTNOTE
Paper contributed to the Bombay Provincial Co-operative
Conference, September 17, 1917.