_The Servant of India_ has a fling too at spinning and that is based as
I shall presently show on ignorance of the facts. Spinning does protect
a woman's virtue, because it enables women, who are to-day working on
public roads and are often in danger of having their modesty outraged,
to protect themselves, and I know no other occupation that lacs of women
can follow save spinning. Let me inform the jesting writer that several
women have already returned to the sanctity of their homes and taken to
spinning which they say is the one occupation which means so much
_barkat_ (blessing). I claim for it the properties of a musical
instrument, for whilst a hungry and a naked woman will refuse to dance
to the accompaniment of a piano, I have seen women beaming with joy to
see the spinning wheel work, for they know that they can through that
rustic instrument both feed and clothe themselves.
Yes, it does solve the problem of India's chronic poverty and is an
insurance against famine. The writer of the jests may not know the
scandals that I know about irrigation and relief works. These works are
largely a fraud. But if my wise counsellors will devote themselves to
introducing the wheel in every home, I promise that the wheel will be an
almost complete protection against famine. It is idle to cite Austria. I
admit the poverty and limitations of my humanity. I can only think of
India's _Kamadhenu_, and the spinning wheel is that for India. For India
had the spinning wheel in every home before the advent of the East India
Company. India being a cotton growing country, it must be considered a
crime to import a single yard of yarn from outside. The figures quoted
by the writer are irrelevant.
The fact is that in spite of the manufacture of 62.7 crores pounds of
yarn in 1917-18 India imported several crore yards of foreign yarn
which were woven by the mills as well as the weavers. The writer does
not also seem to know that more cloth is to-day woven by our weavers
than by mills, but the bulk of it is foreign yarn and therefore our
weavers are supporting foreign spinners. I would not mind it much if we
were doing something else instead. When spinning was almost compulsorily
stopped nothing replaced it save slavery and idleness. Our mills cannot
to-day spin enough for our wants, and if they did, they will not keep
down prices unless they were compelled. They are frankly money-makers
and will not therefore regulate prices according to the needs of the
nations. Hand-spinning is therefore designed to put millions of rupees
in the hands of poor villagers. Every agricultural country requires a
supplementary industry to enable the peasants to utilise the spare
hours. Such industry for India has always been spinning. Is it such a
visionary ideal--an attempt to revive an ancient occupation whose
destruction has brought on slavery, pauperism and disappearance of the
inimitable artistic talents which was once all expressed in the
wonderful fabric of India and which was the envy of the world?
And now a few figures. One boy could, if he worked say four hours daily,
spin 1/4 lb. of yarn. 64,000 students would, therefore, spin 16,000 lbs.
per day, and therefore feed 8,000 weavers if a weaver wove two lbs. of
hand-spun yarn. But the students and others are required to spin during
this year of purification by way of penance in order to popularise
spinning and to add to the manufacture of hand-spun yarn so as to
overtake full manufacture during the current year. The nation may be too
lazy to do it. But if all put their hands to this work, it is incredibly
easy, it involves very little sacrifice and saves an annual drain of
sixty crores even if it does nothing else. I have discussed the matter
with many mill-owners, several economists, men of business and no one
has yet been able to challenge the position herein set forth. I do
expect the 'Servant of India' to treat a serious subject with
seriousness and accuracy of information.
_Y. I.--16th Feb. 1921._