Why I don't eat beef.

I am often asked why, though admitting that beef eating is part of Brahminhood, according to Veda, I myself don't partake of cow flesh.

The answer is since I took the milk of the cow, it is my mother. Will I eat the flesh of my own mother?
I still recall how the milk-man used to come to extract milk from my mother's breasts but she would beat him and chase him away. He said 'Mataji, please don't beat me. Your son takes milk from my cow. He considers the cow his mother. Since I am extracting milk from the udders of my cow so as to provide your son with milk, I thought I should come and offer you the same service since you too are equally his mother.'
My mother replied 'My son is 49 years old. He has only recently become a Hindutva blogger. Kindly find someone else to follow on Twitter.'

Anyway, that's why I don't eat beef but devour it simply.

Other Hindutva bloggers had mothers quite different to mine. They were quite happy to be milked while mooing loudly and eating grass. Meanwhile, patriotic and religiously minded cows would come quietly to their babies' cribs, pick them up with dainty hoofs and attach them to their brimming udders.

Nitin Gadkare also does this, not because he now thinks he is a cow but just as part of his weight-loss strategy.

                                           mothers of hindutva bloggers eating grass and mooing

                                               Gadkare Sahib giving milk to a baby faced Lalu

Gandhi vs Ambedkar.

 ' But in their one-upmanship battle as to who could speak for Depressed Classes with authority, Ambedkar held the trump card for he himself was an Untouchable. Gandhi admitted that he had at first taken Ambedkar to be a Brahmin obsessed with helping the Untouchables. It was not until their clash in London that Gandhi realized that Ambedkar was an Untouchable—which says much about Gandhi’s stereotype of Untouchables as the “dumb millions” that he and Congress maintained they represented (Writings 2:660).'
All quotations are from Harold Coward 'Indian critiques of Gandhi'
  Gandhi and Ambedkar had previously co-operated because they had completely misunderstood each other. Ambedkar thought Gandhi was a good man who wanted to remove Untouchability because, more than a crime, it was a piece of National folly. Gandhi approved of Ambedkar because he thought the young chap was a Maharashtrian Brahmin. (Ambedkar's school teacher had given his young prodigy of a pupil his own surname as a mark of distinction)- probably Chitpavan and hence Manly. But Gandhi believed he was more Truly Manly than everybody else so he naturally got riled when Ambedkar started talking law and ethics and so on for no good reason other than the uplifting of the oppressed classes. How dare this young fellow wag his tail like this? What for this Brahmin is getting so heated over some damn untouchables? Just showing off his machismo isn't it? So Gandhi had to cut the fellow down to size.
Anyway, turned out the chap wasn't a Brahmin at all but a pariah of some sort- like that Sri Narayana Guru down Vaikom way. Just because these chaps know Sanskrit or have PhD from Columbia or LSE or whatever, they forget their karma caused them to be the 'younger brothers' of us caste Hindus.  Anyway, now I've invented a new name for the achooths. Let them be called Harijan. Since it is a name I have coined and I am the only one who understands Bhagvad Gita, though I don't know Sanskrit and Mimamsa and all that rot, still it is clear that I am the voice of Hari and thus they are my children and must listen to me and buy my worthless magazine which I have called 'Harijan'.
Since Ambedkar won't call himself a Harijan he can't represent them. They are my monopoly. Let Ambedkar whine to his heart's content that I am paying High Caste lawyers to sit around doing nothing out of funds  ostensibly collected for the up-liftment of his caste-fellows. This is how the world works. Why do people call me anti-modern and medieval in my thinking? What could be more modern and avant la lettre than the Gandhian prior to the current epidemic of holier-than-thou Anti Poverty parasites and plague of Eco-Feminists?

The British at this time, or a little earlier, had granted full universal suffrage with strong minority protection to Sri Lanka, thanks to Sidney Webb. They gave limited franchise with separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs and Untouchables to India. Had Gandhi let this stand, then Muslim fears, especially in the United Provinces, would have been allayed. The road to Partition would have been closed. Why? The numerical preponderance of the Hindus would have ceased to be a cause of anxiety.
The British were right. Minorities need to be protected. It was only when Sri Lanka jettisoned those constitutional protections that it became prey to the evils of civil war and insurrectionary politics. Gandhi, however, only had importance as a bridge between communities at daggers drawn with each other. His stock in trade was
1) to champion Hindu-Muslim unity while doing everything in his power to put the two creeds at loggerheads thus making himself an 'obligatory passage point'.
2) to take money from the Mill owners while pretending to protect the handloom weavers from competition with the machine by generously supplying them with hand-spun cotton yarn- though what his acolytes produced was not fit for purpose.
3) to be a sort of High Caste Pundit, though completely ignorant (his defeat at the hands of the Vaikom Pundits was a foregone conclusion. The man knew no Sanskrit, no Nyaya, no Mimamsa and had zero common-sense) on the basis of a fraudulent service to the  Hindu Religion by keeping the Untouchables within the fold and in a submissive posture.
The Poona pact with Ambedkar, on the face of it, looks generous- it doubled representation for the oppressed class but, since members were returned on the general ballot, it meant Congress Uncle Toms would capture those seats and thus the Muslim League's position had become more rather than less precarious. This fact was underlined by Congress failing to pass Untouchability Abolition Acts when they could easily have done so. Ambedkar, now known to be an 'achooth' himself, soon saw through 'Gandhi-giri' but here too, as with Khilafat, Gandhi had managed to turn Untouchability into a weapon to destroy Hindu Muslim Unity. The Harijan Sevak Sangh, dominated by High Caste fuckwits, wanted to turn the 'bhangi' (night soil carrier) into a vegetarian, teetotaller, so as to make his service that much more pleasing and hygienic to his patrons. This was Congress's plan for the 'Untouchables', towards whom they claimed to feel great penitence. What did they have in mind for the meat-eating Muslims towards whom they felt not penitence but rancour? No doubt, there was some dangerous or dirty job these Banias and Brahmins already have in mind for us but why wait for Bania Raj to find out what that might be?

There was an easy way to destroy the caste system- embrace meat eating, wine drinking and grant legitimacy to children of pratiloma or other types of Union. The Japanese abolished the ban on the flesh of four legged animals, including cows, and equalized the position of merchants and samurai. Hedonism worked as a great leveller. So did conscription. Gandhian austerity operated in a manner precisely the reverse. It was a Bania hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity writ large, nothing more.
 “One born a scavenger must earn his livelihood by being a scavenger, and then do whatever else he likes. For a scavenger is as worthy of his hire as a lawyer or your President.”
But, this was precisely the argument of the Vaikom pundits who had defeated Gandhi in debate ten years previously. They had been born as upholders of Untouchability. That is how they earned their livelihood. They and others like them had put up a Case, decided in their favour, to the High Court by which the road to the temple was declared a private, rather than public thoroughfare and thus exempt from an older law. Why did they do this? It was a hereditary duty incumbent upon them by reason of their livelihood. In private life they might drink with or have sexual relations with people of the oppressed class but that was a different matter. Now, if threatened with a beating or a fine, it would be perfectly proper for them to desist from discrimination because that duty was defeasible by reason of exigent circumstances. In other words, it was a duty which only became binding if it could be carried out with perfect safety from harm or opprobrium.
  When Rajaji was seeking to implement Temple Entry, he found that the Priests wanted Legislation to enforce it because otherwise they faced costly court cases for delinquency to duty. If Gandhi was ignorant of this aspect of the matter- and Gandhi was a deeply ignorant man- he nevertheless does not escape censure. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, at least for a lawyer. Ignorance of Indian conditions is no excuse if you claim to lead the Indian people.
I once read somewhere that Sankaracharya taught cows to chant the Vedas as a way to rebuke the arrogance of the ritualists. What about Gandhi?

'When Ambedkar indicated that he and the Untouchables should find another religion and leave the Hindu fold, Gandhi was shocked to see Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs vying with each other to convert  untouchables. In a conversation with the Christian leader John Mott, Gandhi said that such activities hurt him and were an ugly travesty of religion (CW 64:35). Aside from it being an unseemly competition, said Mott, should Christians not preach the gospel to Untouchables who were thinking of leaving Hinduism? Gandhi’s response did not endear him to the Untouchables: “Would you preach the gospel to a cow? Well, some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding . . . they can no more distinguish between the relative merits of Islam and Hinduism and Christianity than a cow” (CW 64:37)


Gandhi's greatest victory- perhaps his only one-against the forces of reform came towards the end of his life when he persuaded Congress to give Ambedkar a Ministerial berth. According to Gandhian thinking, Ambedkar would be utterly annihilated as a rational and moral being, the moment he planted his bottom on a Ministerial 'kursi'. But Gandhi miscalculated. Ambedkar had aptness, not appetency, for high office. If his only service was as a draughtsman of the Constitution, he would still stand head and shoulders above all his contemporaries. However, yet greater heights remained for him to scale. History will remember him as a Boddhisattva.

Does Hinduism promote Corruption?

Three students, all of Hindu heritage, at an American Business College think Indian corruption is at least partly attributable to something intrinsic to Hindu culture.

'Furthermore, Indian literary history fully embraces the concept of noble ends justifying dubious means. Three texts intrinsic to Indian culture and philosophy help to explain the current business landscape: the epics Ramayana and Mahabarata and the economic treatise Arthshastra.

'In both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, even gods resort to deceit and trickery to accomplish their ends. In the latter, Lord Krishna repeatedly devises "underhanded" methods to defeat the opposing army -- going so far as to encourage the protagonist, Arjuna, to attack and kill an unarmed adversary.

'In addition, the Arthshastra is often cited publicly by prominent politicians and businessmen as the foundation of their strategic thought. Written to advise a king on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy, the work advocates the use of deception and sometimes brutal measures for the common good. Max Weber described Machiavelli's draconian Prince as harmless when compared to Arthshastra, whose topics range from "when a nation should violate a treaty and invade" to "when killing domestic opponents is wise."

Before condemning these young students for not understanding the texts they mention, one must in fairness grant that they have indeed accurately portrayed the conventional wisdom regarding the Hindu epics as taught by leading American professors. Since these students are studying in America, it is perfectly proper for them to reflect what is taught there- they have gone to America to learn, not to teach.

It may well be that, if these students previously studied in India, they are also reflecting the conventional wisdom amongst high ranking Academics at leading Universities back home.

As students and young people, they can scarcely be blamed for parroting views held by the sort of people who grade their papers and determine their success in the corrupt Credentialist fraud that is Higher Education.

What the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, Arthashastra, Manu Smriti and so on have in common is that they teach that the path of absolute ethical Autonomy is highest of all and that no force, not even that of the Heavenly Gods (whose existence is part of Maya- Illusion- merely), can prevail against it. Corruption, Mendacity and Violence offer no advantage and pose no threat to an individual or collective which has chosen the highest goal and which has its feet firmly planted upon the path to it.

The Vyadha Gita shows how a merchant- in a trade that is a byword for fraud- gains prosperity, by pure means alone, while remaining firmly fixed in absolute Autonomy that is also Union with the Highest. His business dealings are pure, so he gains wealth. He reveres his own parents as Gods and thus is free from the pious frauds of priestcraft. He has no fear of Death, having gained the honeyed wisdom of the Chandogya Unpanishad. He is free and neither corrupts not is corrupted. 

Vegetarian nutjobs will say- 'but, he is a butcher! Chee chee!' The reason they will say this is because they are so full of shit their mouth has to take on some of the work of their arsehole.

Eating meat, including beef, is perfectly compatible with Hinduism as is brewing beer of distilling spirits.

The students use the term 'ethical equilibria'- which suggests some sort of Peyton Young type co-operative game theoretic dimension to their analysis. The point about co-operative games is that, as agents learn that the strategy of their counterpart is not of a myopic Hobbesian kind, their own behaviour changes such that suddenly it as though something we would call altruism, or ethics, or even aesthetics, is being collectively maximized.

The Mahabharata shows the futility of war but also points to the glorious fate of the one son of Vyasa who was free of the tri-gunas- Suka, who flies by the nets of illusion and gains the highest Union leaving his father behind, though yet at the morning of the world, cheerless and bereft.

The Ramayana shows that emotions as 'Darwinian algorithms of the mind' and Ethics as 'Customary Morality' are dangerously counter-productive whereas their true end is more perfectly realized along the path to the highest goal.

The Arthashastra, like Manusmriti, says the path of pure Spiritual Autonomy is highest. It is beyond the scope of Politics and Economics. There is some special pleading for existing 'kutniti' expedients, on some spurious grounds. For this reason both texts are rejected by the Saints. They have nothing to do with the living and immortal Religion though, because of a historicist judicial hermeneutics adopted by the East India Company, in English and English alone, these texts have acquired a sort of normative value. Incidentally, the Arthashastra was only rediscovered in the early years of the last century. 

I find no fault with the three students. But, I ask the question, how long can India survive if a false hermeneutic of Colonial manufacture continues to enjoy normative status in the English speaking Academy? 

It is useless to say kids will learn the true Hinduism at grandma's knee. Chances are, for these 3 students, their grannies were History Professors at JNU or something equally vile.

revitalizing micro-finance

Beggars. Redefine Beggars as Microfinance clients and the pennies they get as loans at 18%. Securitize their debt and get Vinod Khosla to invest. What? It could work.
Tomorrow, thieves.

Gandhian solution to the Babri Masjid dilemma

What do you think must be done at the site of demolished Babri Masjid?

The status quo should be preserved. The debris, the rubble, representing the hardness of our hearts and the shallowness of our minds, is more sacred as a confession of our unregenerateness than an aggressive, avenging, construction of a Ram temple at the site can ever be. Or a legalistic reconstruction of the demolished mosque.

At the deepest level, no new Rama temple can in all conscience be constructed at the site until the questions of Sita’s banishment and the killing of Shudraka by Rama in the Ramayana are satisfactorily resolved by a more self-questioning Hinduism than Hindutva can ever be.

Without atonement for the miseries heaped upon women and the “lower” castes as a result of an uncritical acceptance of the authenticity of these episodes in the Ramayana, it would be an insult to Sita and Rama to build a new temple at the site of arrogance and vengefulness in Ayodhya whether or not it is the site of Rama’s birth.

Who said this?

It was Ramachandra Gandhi, the Mahatma's grandson.

Who is this 'Shudraka' killed by Rama? Possibly, Rishi Shambuka is meant. 

The story is from the Uttarakanda- a splendid satire on Religion and Ethics and the holier-than-thou Kings and self-aggrandizing Priests who blindly suckle upon those two breasts of the Goddess of Corruption.

Ram is a nice guy who loves his wife. But, because of some nonsensical scruple he banishes her and makes himself miserable. He also kills a great Rishi doing tapas (austere meditation) so as to prevent the guy from gaining Heaven, just because the fellow happened to be working class. 

Rama's action would be praiseworthy  if he he'd said- 'Bad enough the Brahmins, those lazy beggars, have indulged in this stupidity from time immemorial, but they are worthless cunts so let them keep to it. True some Kshatriyas (warriors) and Vaishyas (merchants) too have taken up this ridiculous and contemptible practise, but even that is tolerable because power and wealth inevitably create idleness and stupidity so that too can be tolerated. But, if even the working class- the productive element in Society- take up this nonsense then we are surely doomed! I behead this Rishi with my sword so as to save the common-weal. Let the working-class, at least, be free from this potent source of mischief. '

However, if Lord Ram had made such a statement, the Uttarakanda would fail as a tragic work of art and would simply become the ultimate Veda- or Divine Revelation.

Of course, from the Religious point of view, what is happening is that Shambuk is being elevated to the status of Ravana, who was a Brahmin and greatest of tapasvins (masters of austere meditation) and who gained the goal of ultimate Liberation by being killed by Lord Ram. That warrior himself, however, far from enjoying felicity is condemned, in the Uttarakanda, to separation from his beloved wife and the killing, rather than protection, of a Rishi. This is both funny, from the Cosmic point of view, as well as touching, if not tragic, because the truth is Religion and Ethics fuck up middle-aged people who somehow think they are better than others.

One important consequence of the Uttarakanda is we cease to clamour to have an Incarnation of the Lord to lead us here and now. Why? Incarnation is bad for God. It ends tragically. God suffers when he takes human form. Let the incarnations who have already come suffice for us. If some fuckwit sets himself up as an Avatar or Prophet, tell him to go fuck himself. He is a worthless piece of shit. Don't kill him. The guy is probably mentally ill. But don't give him money or let him sleep with your daughter or son or wife or whatever. Beat him as and when required and piss upon him at regular intervals so as to communicate your deprecation of his claims to moral authority.

Having dealt with the message of the Uttarakanda, let us now look at Ramachandra Gandhi's solution for the Babri Masjid issue. 

He says a crime has committed against women and 'lower' castes and for this reason nothing should be done, neither should the mosque be built nor a temple constructed, nor the land be returned to an agricultural purpose.

Thus, Gandhi thinks, reparation for a historical crime dictates how land should be used here and now. 

What is the flaw in this argument?

If a crime against women and lower castes requires reparation, why not a crime against the 'High Caste' Manuvad Hindus? Were they not conquered by Muslims? If reparation is owed to Women and Scheduled Castes why not to High Caste Hindu men?

The British left over 65 years ago yet India is quite happy to go on receiving Aid from the U.K on the grounds that this is some sort of reparation for their past crimes.

However, the British justified their exploitation of Bengal by saying it was reparation for the Black Hole of Calcutta, the massacre at Kanpur and so on and so forth. 

Ramachandra Gandhi, in the end, reveals himself to be as stupid as his grandfather- who thought the earthquake in Bihar was a divine punishment for the horrors of the Caste System.

The Mahatma was a head trauma victim. He wrote and said stupid things. His grandson was an intelligent, educated, man of spotless reputation. Yet, because he made the mistake of treating his grandfather's writings and sayings as being other than the ravings of a crackpot, he ended up saying foolish and stupid things.

What stupid and foolish people say about Ethics and Religion, in other words, almost everything Scholarly published under that rubric, is mischievous shite.

The Babri Masjid issue, all along, was a situation where co-operative Game theory- not tit-for-tat competitive Game theory- needed to be applied. The Law permits it, Revealed Religion (not Gandhian idiocy) sanctifies it, and the principle of Subsidiarity (the essence of Democracy) commands it.

Gandhian politics looks like an ideal basis from which to build co-operative solutions. Yet, neither in Gandhi's hands , nor in those of his heirs and apostles, has it ever worked as such. Instead, it has functioned as a mischievous interressement mechanism which flash freezes people and communities into eternally antagonistic roles. 

Gandhian thinking would turn the whole of India, the whole of the world, into nothing but rubble which is to be treated as sacred, which must be left in place, because 'the debris, the rubble, representing the hardness of our hearts and the shallowness of our minds, is more sacred as a confession of our unregenerateness' than as anything else more socially utile.

The point about Ayodhya is that it is a Temple town. Everybody can benefit if the pilgrim trade increases. There is a positive sum co-operative solution that dominates all others.

The Saudis have been accused of vandalism because they knocked down a lot of old buildings- no doubt of great antiquarian interest and aesthetic value- and turned Mecca into a technological marvel of Civil Engineering which, I am given to understand, fulfils its function very well at a utilitarian level. Ordinary people, from all over the world, go on pilgrimage there and find the experience glorious. Saudi Arabia will be able to draw revenue to maintain the Holy Places, from the pilgrims even if their oil suddenly runs out. 

It appears, the dilatory Indian Justice system has at last handed down a judgement that can be the basis of a co-operative solution. Instead of rubble, something more conducive to commerce may appear on the site.

It is noteworthy that the Gandhians, here as elsewhere, contributed nothing to the solution but, rather, sought to make permanent the worst possible outcome on the grounds that so stupid and foolish a course should be held 'more sacred'.

Indian Parliament canteen to open counters in Railway stations.

A good April Fool's joke from NDTV- poor people will be able to enjoy the subsidized food Indian Railways provides to Parliament- I just hope Mamta wasn't watching.

Why Gandhi failed to kill off khadi

Because the Second World War reduced the supply of mill cloth for civilians and because wages had risen, demand for khadi (home spun) was booming.
This posed a grave threat to Gandhi's core program.

He discussed methods of combating the menace of a healthy khadi industry with a fuckwit 'Social Reformer' of the period named S. Jaju.

Gandhi- My only condition will be that they (the weavers) should sell all the khadi they produce in the villages near about the centre of production, the tehsil, the district or at the most the province. They should  not,  like  the  people  of  Chicacole ( the city of Srikakulam),  produce  everything  for Bombay and use nothing at home.
J. Chicacole is an exception, and is the only production centre in the country for fine khadi.
G. Yes, even in that case I would ask the producers and sellers to wear what they produce or sell. They may send their articles outside but   they  mus t   also wear  them.  In   case they go   on  producing  fine
khadi   for Bombay but use only mill-cloth  themselves,  their  centre must cease to be run by the A. I. S. A. I would even insist that it be closed altogether.
J. Deducting something from the income of the craftsmen or women towards supply of khadi to them, we do make them wear some khadi. But this seems to be a sort of imposition. They do not take to it voluntarily.
G. I may put up with such a situation for a short period. I do not expect  people  to  take  to  khadi  immediately  and  to  accept non-violence.  We  must  educate  them  in  true  economics  and  in
non-violence. If we succeed in developing a true economic outlook in them,  they  would  ultimately  understand  non-violence  as  well.  An economics  which  runs  counter  to  morality  cannot  be  called  true economics. Our workers can develop an outlook of true economics in the villages only if they work under the inspiration of non-violence and morality.

Gandhiji worked tirelessly to destroy khadi- that is home-spun cloth. Yet, in the case of the fine muslin of Srikaulam, he failed. Why? Was it because he wasn't sleeping with a sufficient number of naked girls?
No.
The weavers of that place were highly skilled. They sold their produce at high prices in Bombay and used the money to buy cheaper mill cloth for themselves.
Gandhi was deeply distressed by those muslin weavers of Srikakulam; 'I know that Chicacole khadi is very popular and that it fetches a good  sale in  far  off  provinces;  but this  pains  me  very much.'

The All India Spinners Association employed 3000 workers. The expenditure was about 4 crore rupees as against revenue from sales of about 1 crore rupees. Yet, because of war time constraints on Mill production of textiles, khadi was profitable and this posed a problem.  How create Employment in such a way that it destroyed the Industry it concerned itself with?


J. Spinning, I hope, will become universal. Weaving of course will  be  a skilled craft carried on by a few as it is even today. The fact is that so long as there are mills, khadi production cannot  be  carried  on on a large  scale.  We  began  cloth self-sufficiency work in Surgaon. Ours was a five-year programme. Vallabhswami’s experience is that people do take to khadi but not intelligently. Once we withdraw from the centre, khadi also disappears. Unless the people grasp the place of khadi in
the entire economy of the village they will not stick to it. The benefits derived from self-sufficient khadi are so little that it offers hardly any attraction.
G. That also worries me. Vallabhswami’s words resound in my ears. Party feeling developed in his village. Fasting had to be resorted to. I feel that behind it all there was a mistake in approach somewhere. We offered inducements to the people, gave them facilities, but these do not serve our purpose. We have to discover to what length khadi, by its own inherent strength, can carry India forward. So far in our quest we have found that khadi is saleable in the cities but not in the villages. We have not yet succeeded in making it acceptable to the villagers. If we have been defeated we must confess our defeat. We should learn from our past experience and adopt  new  methods  of work if needed. That is why I say that we should stop producing khadi for the cities. Today about a crore of rupees worth of khadi is sold in the cities. We should hereafter make it clear to the cities that we cannot any more supply them ready-made khadi but will teach them how to produce it, leaving them the option of either producing it themselves or getting it from the producer. I am not enamoured of the sales of one crore of rupees worth of khadi in the cities. We should put into khadi work not money but brain and heart. In other words we shall now have ruthlessly to investigate the value of khadi in terms of its real potentialities. In case we find it does not carry us as far as we claimed, let us give it up or lower our claim or let us take up some other basic occupation such as agriculture. From the very beginning it has been my firm conviction that agriculture provides the only unfailing and perennial support to the people of this country. We should take it up and see how far we can go with it as basis. I would not at all mind if some of our young men serve the country by training themselves as experts in agriculture in place of khadi. I have come to realize that we have yet to overcome a lot of difficulties. The time has now come for us to pay attention to agriculture. Till now I believed that improvement in agriculture was impossible unless we had the administration of the State in our own hands. My views on this are now undergoing modification. I feel that we can bring about improvements even under the present conditions, so that the cultivator may be able to make some income for himself from the land even after paying his taxes. Jawaharlal says that any extra income to the peasant through the improvement of agriculture will be swallowed up under one  pretext  or  the  other  by  the  alien Government. But I feel that even if it were so, it should not hinder us from acquiring and spreading as much knowledge about agriculture as  possible.  It  may  be  that  the  Government  will  take  away  any additional  income  that  may  come  to  the  villagers  through improvements in agriculture. If they do, we can protest and teach the people to resist and make it clear to the Government that it cannot loot us in this manner. This is only by way of an illustration. I therefore hold that we must hereafter find workers who will interest themselves in agriculture.


Thus we see that the real reason Gandhi failed to kill off khadi was because he was prepared to give up completely and concentrate on killing off subsistence agriculture.
So, what is the moral of this story?
Non-violence can only succeed if you have sufficient moral fortitude to fully renounce it and shrilly denounce it if objective circumstances exist such that it might flourish in any case.