Khadi. Where does it stand?

I didn’t realize how unfamiliar I really was with Khadi until the question was posed to us. What do I think of when I hear Khadi?

The readings were enlightening on subjects I’m not too familiar with. Economics, History, subjects I enjoy learning about but don’t know enough to have a heated conversation or argument. The reading on Buddhist economics really caught my attention. I read and reread until I thought I got it. The author of the article seems to be an idealist because he pushes you toward Buddhist economics.  He does fairly explain modern economics but he seems to have taken a stand against Buddhist countries who seem to look toward modern economics. Where’s the need if modern countries have modern economics, won’t a country with Buddhist principles thrive with Buddhist economics? A simple answer to a simple question. A persuasive man, E. F. Schumacher he is. But at the end of the reading when my group discussed, everyone was very realistic about the idea of Buddhist economics, dismissing it as idealistic to say the least, doubting very much the amount of change that can encapsulate the consumerist mind of the modern man.

I like to believe if given the chance, we’d be able to switch over or at least adapt, Buddhist economics does sound appealing in a sense that a lot of problems will hopefully disappear. They really don’t ask for much. Live simply, buy only what you need. Indulgences are frowned upon.

Buddhist economics promotes a fulfilling job that enhances the character of a person by providing a public service, humbling him by doing a common task, putting time into work that helps develop his mind and health, and occupying him with work that requires skill and competence. Overall the wellbeing of the person is put above everything else. Only how much ever is needed, need be produced.

Work and leisure are thought to go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other.

Modern economics has no concern for man, labour, land, hours. Just the final product – how many are made and how fast it is produced to meet and create demand. This leads to dull small jobs. Long hours. Least wage. Ideally a modern employer would want a more mechanized workforce, leading to less money being shelled out, and faster more plenitful precise products. While the modern employee wants less working hours and more money. A system that is followed is Division of Labour : Small tasks, greater speed requiring insignificant skills, ultimately thought to kill a man’s character and mind..

Buddhist economy promotes local resources and local goods. What is produced is produced for the people in the country. Nothing is produced to export because that is more than what is needed, an indulgence. Why provide for another when you only need to produce enough for your community. While the view is quite different in modern economics.

The only difference that can be noted between Buddhist and gandhian principles  is that the Buddhists believe that women should not work, they should only take care of their children and take care of things around the home while Gandhi encouraged women to participate in society and weave cloth.

While Nehru was looking at public sector and industry, a more globalised development so that India can be a name to be reckoned with throughout the world, Gandhi thought deeper and wanted it at the roots, strengthening at the base in the villages and people before industry.

At the time of independence we were thrown down by many things, industrial revolution, green revolution so many things going on to increase our well being.

In 1915, Gandhi moved back to India. Around this time, mills were being opened in Manchester. Taking raw material from India, processing it and selling it over priced in India. The East India Company came to initiate and thrive on trade but instead they started colonizing. They took advantage of our bountiful land and of our people.

India is an Agrarian community. Half the year is spent on the field and harvesting, when the farmers are not cultivating, what do they do? They turn to other livelihoods which help support them like cattle breeding and of course the Handloom. Every single farmer family made their own cloths in the months that they could not till the land, to provide clothes to adorn for their own backs. A self sustaining society.

The Charkra was used as a weapon. Gandhi wanted to take something that held a lot of people together. What better than the symbol of self sustenance, a livelihood that is practiced by all the common people, right at the roots of India in the villages. Spun by hand, handmade cloth, Khadi, made with material, cotton, grown on our land by our people. Bringing unity in such a beautiful context.

Thus the Khadi movement was produced. This created two classes : Wearers/ believers vs British supporters/non believers. This provided employment in the rural areas, utilized local resources, local machines tools.  A very economic way of developing our country as well.

Gandhi promoted this movement in many ways like just passing word by mouth, national tours, wrote about it, promoting ahimsa, burning foreign goods. It wasn't enough just to wear it. He tried to make eminent people wear it to encourage people of all levels of society to take up the cause, to create unity in a country where communication is not what is today, where anything spreads at the snap of a finger. Considering this, his message was clear and widespread.

Gandhiji prevented Khadi from disappearing, as there was a fear of it when we were forced to buy British goods. 

Now comes the question. Where does Khadi stand now, in the society, in India?
Does it hold the grandeur, importance as a national symbol of unity that it had during the freedom movement?

Since Gandhi promoted it, Khadi edged towards becoming a symbol of superiority, intellectual minds and power. Politicians to support the freedom movement then adorned this fabric. Now the tradition had followed only in the sense of the colour. 

Politicians of this day and age don't adorn Khadi but diligently wear white or off white Indian clothes to get the favour of the people. An unstated but understood tradition of sorts.

Since the time of Independence, Khadi may not hold the symbolism and meaning as it did then. Should it be used keeping in mind that it was once an integral part of our history?

How much of it can we change? Is it right to? Can khadi only be subjected to stints of revival now and then to uphold our heritage and rejoice in a symbol of our struggle to independance?

In my opinion, Khadi can be utilized in a way that should not really be just for special occasions but for every day activities as well. This will give us more of a connection a familiarity with such an important symbol. I feel it will take nothing away from the nobility of it. Understated and elegant is what Khadi is in my eyes. All that needs to be done is to make it desirable again which does not seem to hard in this age of communication and advertising skills that can make anything 'trendy' or desirable. But maybe all we need is to bring back the spotlight to this symbol of our history and see our generation, respect and revel in our culture and history. 

Many revival projects have been taken up, varying between slight and massive changes to the origin of Khadi.

Keeping this in mind, not much should be done to change or fluff it up to make it desirable to the present generation. Though it can be seen as inevitable for such changes, simplicity is by itself a class of it's own. Designers who take Khadi on as a project for 'revival' and what not need to really understand what Khadi means before choosing to make their changes. It cannot be helped as it seems but the essence of Khadi must always be respected and not abused.