THE WAIKATO TIMES With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1930. GHANDI’S FOLLY.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17966, 11 March 1930, Page 6

THE WAIKATO TIMES With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1930. GHANDI’S FOLLY.

Wc are told by cable that Gandhi has organised a boycott of British rule in India and that the gravest' consequences are expected to result from it. Wc arc fortunate in this country in knowing nothing about such racial movements and find it difficult, to realise that it can be of such overwhelming importance. One would like‘to know whether the Hindu portion of the community will follow Gandhi. His reputation has fluctuated up and down. It is not long since we were told that his influence had quite disappeared, yet now it would seem from the cables to be as great as ever. Gandhi himself advocates non-violence, but at 1 lie same time seems to expect (hat Ihc movement will lead to bloodshed. He is accounted a saint, not only by his own people but by many while people who know him personally, and lie would seem to have a belter claim to the title than many others who have it. Unfortunately his saintliness is no guarantee against his doing much mischief, and indeed adds to iis likelihood by rendering him i fanatical in his self-confidence. The : Lords some years since when con- ! tending with the Commons adopted the cry of “Damn the consequences,” and that is the line which Gandhi is | taking while protesting at the same | time that lie wants no violence. He bases his arguments on statements about the British rule that as an educated man he must know to be false. He says that Britain has impoverished India by her extravagant military and civil administration, and quotes the Viceroy’s salary as compared with that of the average Indian. Such comparisons are entirely misleading. There js no question that the average Indian is extremely\ poor, but so far is this from being due to British rule that the condition of the Indiianjs far better to-day than it was when the British came to India. All researches into the history of India and the condition of its people in the past show that it was subject to constant invasions; that the rule of the Moguls was arbitrary and oppressive, and that the Mahrattas who followed the Moguls over a large portion of the country were no better than banditti. The peasantry at that lime were heavily taxed and much poorer than they are to-day. The best proof of the benefits which have resulted from British rule Js the absence of famine. For centuries these occurred regularly, and not only caused-very many deaths but also left very many of the population permanently weakened in health. There has been no famine for 30 years past, owing to the elaborate organisation created by the British for providing work and for transferring food from where it is plentiful. In the same lime the population has increased seven per cent. Gandhi can scarcely he ignorant of these things, and in basing his argument for a boycott on such statements he must know that lie is not acling with candour or fairness. His action, if it comes to anything, must kill any idea of increasing ttie amount of self-government lo he given to mdia. for it would afford a strong argument that the people arc not lit for autonomy. In any case Ihc grant of self-government must he gradual. The people of India have not been independent for very many centuries; they are not educated, for less than 10 per cent, can read or write. It is said that not 5 per cent, of the population are even aware of the demands made by the educated minority. The caste system creates great suspicion whether the lower castes would receive fair treatment at the hands M the Brahmins, who constitute the educated class that demand automony. Then there is the problem of the other religions. The .Moslems already reI gard Gandhi's threatened boycott c,s an attack on them, and nothing but the strong arm of tilc law prevents the two races from being at each other’s throats. The overwhelming consideration is that some progress must be made towards autonomy, for it is impossible to govern a country where any largo proportion of the I people are hostile. With a problem i before them which is as difficult as | any they have ever faced, the British arc confronted by a foolish and mischievous movement by Gandhi. Sir John Simon’s Commission arc now preparing their report. Nothing can he done until it has appeared and has I had lime for consideration, hut there lis no certainly that its recommend tI lions will he adopted or even that ihej I will he unanimous. The ConscrvaS lives arc already preparing for a ! struggle and urging that every kind of { ffneriila warfare should be practised j against Ihc Labour Government, which j docs not seem very sportsmanlike and i is certainly not patriotic at this put- | ticular juncture: Gandhi has providj ed them with a first-class argument ! which they would he more than human | not to use. i It was trade that took Britain to j India, and government was gradually i forced on us in order to safeguard ’ trade. Since the Grown assumed con- | trol trade has been in private hands.

but it is still an immense volume. India is the largest customer for British goods, and takes as rnucli as Canada and Australia together. She is now increasing the duty on cotton goods which will hamper British exports, but though wc try to persuade them not to do so, we do not forbid il. An effort is made to give India the power to decide her own trade policy, and no doubt she will take the same line as the Dominions. Mankind are imitative and do not stop to consider whether imitation is wise. The policy which .should be pursued towards India is a perplexity, and tnere is something paltry and annoying in having its consideration hampered by such childish and ridiculous action as that proposed by Gandhi.