Boycott, Swadeshi, Socialism and Free-market

First the concept of swadeshi, just like concept of Ahimsa was to applied for a context. This context was a foreign power ruthlessly suppressing Indian enterprise, by applying exorbitantly high rates of taxes and duties on imports, exports and even operation of industries. This was coupled with a highly biased policy towards British industries. This meant that Indian industries access to resources for production was severely restricted, as also their access to English and other colonial markets.

In contrast British industries had an unlimited access to resources as well as market. The prices of products that were bought from Indian artisans and farmers were not decided by market, the prices were suppressed by coercion either in form of draconian laws or by applying cruel force.Similarly British products were protected from competition by laws or by brute force. What we had at that time is called legal monopoly in economic speak.

For reference Adams Smith Wealth of Nation is a good source (I never got to finish the book, boy! Economics can be boring) Our entrepreneurs operated in these difficult circumstances, we often forget to give credit to our industrialist of pre-independent era, but I will say they also served as much as a Satyagrahi. It was in this situation that a decision to boycott all foreign products and promoting Indian industries was taken, in effect it was to counter neutralize legal monopoly that this movement aimed to. In effect it was similar to concept of Ahimsa. It can be confirmed from writings of Guru Aurobindo.

However this changed after Mahatma Gandhi assumed the leadership of freedom movement. While he was without doubt a inspiring man, he was a terrible economist. He, moved by the the toiling masses proposed going back to traditional way. The traditional way, according to him was a self dependent village, this however meant rejecting industrial revolution as well as any convenience resulting from it. And this Mahatma did, his ideal of a life was that of a poor in material wealth,but rich in spiritual wealth. This ideal of his was called Gandhian Socialism and it was different from Nehruvian socialism, which called for a industrialized but centralized economy. What this meant that Swadeshi which was conceived against colonial oppression, became a instrument for protectionist capitalism, therefore it can be called a perversion of what was initially a noble idea.

And here I must stress that protectionist and crony capitalism pose a far serious challenge to notion of free market than communism. As examples from history show that oppression from unethical capitalism more often than not result in support of communism.The net result is that by opposing competition we only benefit inefficient and uncompetitive industrialists harming a larger number of Indians, as consumers and as producers as well. posted by doubtinggaurav Monday, February 06, 2006 @ 8:26 PM