October is considered India’s festival-and-shopping month. It is the month in which you hear stories about cheap foreign goods flooding the Indian market, much to the delight of the Indian consumer who is spoilt for choice – and competitive prices. But Indian manufacturers, small-scale or medium, aren't quite so delighted at the foreign occupation of shelves that once stocked their goods. It's the remorseless logic of the market – cheap goods drive out costly products unless they are of infinitely superior quality.
This logic was given a political spin early this October. Speaking on the occasion of Vijaya Dashmi on October 3 in Nagpur, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat declared, “It is necessary that policies of the government should take the nation towards self-reliance and should encourage entrepreneurship among the people, but it is equally important for the people to encourage consumption of swadeshi products. Our tendency of buying daily need goods, even buying foreign made statues of our gods and goddesses, simply because they are cheaper in price, needs to be abandoned.”
There were three points Bhagwat underscored in his speech. One, the goal of the government’s economic policies is to make India self-reliant through indigenous entrepreneurship. Two, it is as much the responsibility of citizens as it is of the state to encourage Indian manufacturers by buying their products. Three, to achieve self-reliance, Bhagwat demanded the consumer make sacrifices – buy Indian goods even if priced higher. In Bhagwat’s worldview, consumption cannot just be a pure economic decision but must also be linked to nationalism and patriotism – and, therefore, to morality as well.
The morality of consumption
Precisely because Bhagwat sought to imbue consumption with morality, his invoking of swadeshi could not have been innocent. He was harnessing our historical memory of swadeshi, a concept popularised by Mahatma Gandhi, but which predates his emergence as a mass-based leader. Indeed, swadeshi was among the defining aspects of the opposition to British rule. Bhagwat was tapping the residual anxieties evoked by the word swadeshi – of local manufacturing being denuded, growing dependency on foreign countries, and, eventually, enslavement.
That Bhagwat was alluding to the historical concept of swadeshi can be gleaned from the website of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an organisation the RSS floated on Nov 22, 1991, only months after Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao set India on the path of liberalisation. “The concept of Swadeshi is more than 100 years old," read the opening lines of the SJM’s Introduction Section. "Even decades after independence from British colonialism it was felt that for total economic freedom it is essential to make Swadeshi a way of life.” The website goes on to speak of “ongoing economic imperialism” and the measures various RSS outfits have taken to oppose this, staring from the 1980s.
The RSS-SJM appropriates Gandhi for its cause, citing him among the “visionary leaders” who promoted swadeshi. He is bracketed with Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Sri Aurobindo, but also Veer Savarkar, whose Hindutva ideology contrasted sharply with Gandhi’s worldview. Savarkar was an inspiration to Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse. Perhaps the SJM chose Tilak and Aurobindo because they are more amenable to appropriation than, say, Gopal Krishna Gokhale or RC Dutt or Dadabhai Naroji for providing a Hindutva spin on swadeshi.
This is precisely why the RSS-SJM’s idea of swadeshi appears such a mishmash, borrowing as it does elements from three different phases of India’s swadeshi movement. In the first phase, between 1850 and 1904, leaders espousing swadeshi critiqued the colonial arrangement through which raw materials were extracted and exported from India and mill-produced goods brought back. To counter the “economic drain”, the thinkers and leaders spoke of establishing modern factories that were Indian-owned.
Positive nationalism
In his essay, Swadeshi: Meaning and Contemporary Relevance, IIT Mumbai professor LM Bhole describes the idea of swadeshi during this phase as an expression of “positive economic nationalism”, which sought to industrialise India through the investment and effort of Indians. However, swadeshi took on the features of “negative economic nationalism” during the movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905, as foreign goods were boycotted and burnt even as indigenous efforts in the business sector continued apace.
From 1920, swadeshi acquired new forms of meaning because of Gandhi. He was deeply suspicious of industrialised society, believing cheap factory products had impoverished those engaged in cottage industry. This led Gandhi to emphasise that Indians should consume what was produced locally, preferably home-made, than churned out by factories in cities, Indian or foreign, regardless of their cheap price and superior quality.
“Swadeshi,” Gandhi said, “is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote.” This style of consumption entailed not only whittling down needs and leading an austere life, but also people producing goods they needed. The spinning wheel and handspun khadi became the material symbols of his swadeshi thought, a counterpoise to modern factories and their products, a national sartorial and cultural style, and an expression of dissent against the colonial rule. Initially, all factory products were deemed "foreign" and therefore to be eschewed, but the idea of swadeshi was subsequently diluted to include commodities produced in Indian-owned mills.
Confusing cocktail
By contrast, the SJM’s philosophy is a cocktail of disparate ideas, too confusing to be called a coherent philosophy. Sample a few. The SJM lays down the goal of “building Bharat as a world power in the next 25 years”. It says, “India attracted barbaric invasions because of its well-known prosperity. But prosperity was considered a social and national asset ‒ not merely a personal asset.” Obviously, it doesn’t provide proof in support of such a sweeping statement.
The SJM pinches two Gandhian ideas. It defines swadeshi as “the principle of preferring the neighbourhood to the remote”. Two, it says swadeshi “commands need-based life, and rules out unlimited consumption as an end”. In the same breath, though, the SJM asserts, “It is a mistaken notion that the need-based approach of the Swadeshi philosophy is against creation of wealth. Swadeshi is not anti-wealth. It is all for augmenting wealth and power.” Gandhi would have shuddered at such ideas, disinterested as he was in India becoming a global power. Then again, advocacy of need-based life sounds hollow when coming from those obsessed with wealth, as the SJM seemingly is.
Philosophy apart, Bhagwat in his Vijaya Dashmi speech ignores vital differences between the conditions prevailing during the anti-colonial struggle and contemporary times. The British stranglehold over Indian economy was because of its rule over India. Swadeshi tapped into the sentiment against foreign rule. By contrast, the cost advantage the Chinese goods enjoy arises from Beijing’s industrial policy. It isn’t arm-twisting India into accepting the terms of trade. Since China isn’t ruling over India, it seems unlikely Bhagwat can inspire Indians to refrain from purchasing cheaper Chinese goods, including statues of gods and goddesses.
Benefits of liberalisation
This is largely because the dominant discourse in India over the last 25 years has focused on convincing people about the benefits of liberalisation. They have been told that liberalisation isn’t only good for the economy and industrialists, but also for the common person, who will have an array of products to choose from, at rates lower than before, because competition pushes down prices and enhances quality. Bhagwat’s demand that they buy costlier goods can’t dissuade the expanding middle class from reveling in consumerism.
This is why Dwijendra Tripathi, a former professor of IIM Ahmedabad and author of the acclaimed The Oxford History of Indian Businesses, remarks sarcastically, “Any talk of swadeshi in the age of economic liberalisation and market globalisation is sheer insanity. But then insanities are no stranger to RSS!!” Agrees Dr Tirthankar Roy, professor of economic history at the London School of Economics: “In today's world swadeshi is not only obsolete and dysfunctional but also a dangerous ideology.”
This is the first of a two-part essay on swadeshi. Read part two here.
Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His book The Hour Before Dawn will be published by HarperCollins in December.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
This logic was given a political spin early this October. Speaking on the occasion of Vijaya Dashmi on October 3 in Nagpur, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat declared, “It is necessary that policies of the government should take the nation towards self-reliance and should encourage entrepreneurship among the people, but it is equally important for the people to encourage consumption of swadeshi products. Our tendency of buying daily need goods, even buying foreign made statues of our gods and goddesses, simply because they are cheaper in price, needs to be abandoned.”
There were three points Bhagwat underscored in his speech. One, the goal of the government’s economic policies is to make India self-reliant through indigenous entrepreneurship. Two, it is as much the responsibility of citizens as it is of the state to encourage Indian manufacturers by buying their products. Three, to achieve self-reliance, Bhagwat demanded the consumer make sacrifices – buy Indian goods even if priced higher. In Bhagwat’s worldview, consumption cannot just be a pure economic decision but must also be linked to nationalism and patriotism – and, therefore, to morality as well.
The morality of consumption
Precisely because Bhagwat sought to imbue consumption with morality, his invoking of swadeshi could not have been innocent. He was harnessing our historical memory of swadeshi, a concept popularised by Mahatma Gandhi, but which predates his emergence as a mass-based leader. Indeed, swadeshi was among the defining aspects of the opposition to British rule. Bhagwat was tapping the residual anxieties evoked by the word swadeshi – of local manufacturing being denuded, growing dependency on foreign countries, and, eventually, enslavement.
That Bhagwat was alluding to the historical concept of swadeshi can be gleaned from the website of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an organisation the RSS floated on Nov 22, 1991, only months after Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao set India on the path of liberalisation. “The concept of Swadeshi is more than 100 years old," read the opening lines of the SJM’s Introduction Section. "Even decades after independence from British colonialism it was felt that for total economic freedom it is essential to make Swadeshi a way of life.” The website goes on to speak of “ongoing economic imperialism” and the measures various RSS outfits have taken to oppose this, staring from the 1980s.
The RSS-SJM appropriates Gandhi for its cause, citing him among the “visionary leaders” who promoted swadeshi. He is bracketed with Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Sri Aurobindo, but also Veer Savarkar, whose Hindutva ideology contrasted sharply with Gandhi’s worldview. Savarkar was an inspiration to Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse. Perhaps the SJM chose Tilak and Aurobindo because they are more amenable to appropriation than, say, Gopal Krishna Gokhale or RC Dutt or Dadabhai Naroji for providing a Hindutva spin on swadeshi.
This is precisely why the RSS-SJM’s idea of swadeshi appears such a mishmash, borrowing as it does elements from three different phases of India’s swadeshi movement. In the first phase, between 1850 and 1904, leaders espousing swadeshi critiqued the colonial arrangement through which raw materials were extracted and exported from India and mill-produced goods brought back. To counter the “economic drain”, the thinkers and leaders spoke of establishing modern factories that were Indian-owned.
Positive nationalism
In his essay, Swadeshi: Meaning and Contemporary Relevance, IIT Mumbai professor LM Bhole describes the idea of swadeshi during this phase as an expression of “positive economic nationalism”, which sought to industrialise India through the investment and effort of Indians. However, swadeshi took on the features of “negative economic nationalism” during the movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905, as foreign goods were boycotted and burnt even as indigenous efforts in the business sector continued apace.
From 1920, swadeshi acquired new forms of meaning because of Gandhi. He was deeply suspicious of industrialised society, believing cheap factory products had impoverished those engaged in cottage industry. This led Gandhi to emphasise that Indians should consume what was produced locally, preferably home-made, than churned out by factories in cities, Indian or foreign, regardless of their cheap price and superior quality.
“Swadeshi,” Gandhi said, “is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote.” This style of consumption entailed not only whittling down needs and leading an austere life, but also people producing goods they needed. The spinning wheel and handspun khadi became the material symbols of his swadeshi thought, a counterpoise to modern factories and their products, a national sartorial and cultural style, and an expression of dissent against the colonial rule. Initially, all factory products were deemed "foreign" and therefore to be eschewed, but the idea of swadeshi was subsequently diluted to include commodities produced in Indian-owned mills.
Confusing cocktail
By contrast, the SJM’s philosophy is a cocktail of disparate ideas, too confusing to be called a coherent philosophy. Sample a few. The SJM lays down the goal of “building Bharat as a world power in the next 25 years”. It says, “India attracted barbaric invasions because of its well-known prosperity. But prosperity was considered a social and national asset ‒ not merely a personal asset.” Obviously, it doesn’t provide proof in support of such a sweeping statement.
The SJM pinches two Gandhian ideas. It defines swadeshi as “the principle of preferring the neighbourhood to the remote”. Two, it says swadeshi “commands need-based life, and rules out unlimited consumption as an end”. In the same breath, though, the SJM asserts, “It is a mistaken notion that the need-based approach of the Swadeshi philosophy is against creation of wealth. Swadeshi is not anti-wealth. It is all for augmenting wealth and power.” Gandhi would have shuddered at such ideas, disinterested as he was in India becoming a global power. Then again, advocacy of need-based life sounds hollow when coming from those obsessed with wealth, as the SJM seemingly is.
Philosophy apart, Bhagwat in his Vijaya Dashmi speech ignores vital differences between the conditions prevailing during the anti-colonial struggle and contemporary times. The British stranglehold over Indian economy was because of its rule over India. Swadeshi tapped into the sentiment against foreign rule. By contrast, the cost advantage the Chinese goods enjoy arises from Beijing’s industrial policy. It isn’t arm-twisting India into accepting the terms of trade. Since China isn’t ruling over India, it seems unlikely Bhagwat can inspire Indians to refrain from purchasing cheaper Chinese goods, including statues of gods and goddesses.
Benefits of liberalisation
This is largely because the dominant discourse in India over the last 25 years has focused on convincing people about the benefits of liberalisation. They have been told that liberalisation isn’t only good for the economy and industrialists, but also for the common person, who will have an array of products to choose from, at rates lower than before, because competition pushes down prices and enhances quality. Bhagwat’s demand that they buy costlier goods can’t dissuade the expanding middle class from reveling in consumerism.
This is why Dwijendra Tripathi, a former professor of IIM Ahmedabad and author of the acclaimed The Oxford History of Indian Businesses, remarks sarcastically, “Any talk of swadeshi in the age of economic liberalisation and market globalisation is sheer insanity. But then insanities are no stranger to RSS!!” Agrees Dr Tirthankar Roy, professor of economic history at the London School of Economics: “In today's world swadeshi is not only obsolete and dysfunctional but also a dangerous ideology.”
This is the first of a two-part essay on swadeshi. Read part two here.
Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His book The Hour Before Dawn will be published by HarperCollins in December.