1. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WHERE LIQUOR IS BEING SERVED? A gentleman asks in sorrow:1 I am not aware of liquor having been served at the garden party. However, I would have attended it even if I had known it. A banquet was held on the same day. I attended it even though liquor was served there. I was not going to eat anything at either of these two functions. At the dinner a lady was sitting on one side and a gentleman on the other side of me. After the lady had helped herself with the bottle it would come to me. It would have to pass me in order to reach the gentleman. It was my duty to pass it on to the latter. I deliberately performed my duty. I could have easily refused to pass it saying that I would not touch a bottle of liquor. This, however, I considered to be improper. Two questions arise now. Is it proper for persons like me to go where drinks are served ? If the answer is in the affirmative, is it proper to pass a bottle of liquor from one person to another? So far as I am concerned the answer to both the questions is in the affirmative. It could be otherwise in the case of others. In such matters, I know of no royal road and, if there were any, it would be that one should altogether shun such parties and dinners. If we impose any restrictions with regard to liquor, why not impose them with regard to meat, etc.? If we do so with the latter, why not with regard to other items which we regard as unfeatable? Hence if we look upon attending such parties as harmful in certain circumstances, the best way seems to give up going to all such parties. Why then did I go? Because I have been doing so for many years now and there was no special reason for not doing so on this occasion. On such occasions I myself eat nothing or only fruit, hence I could satisfy my conscience that the part I had taken did not involve any impropriety. I know that my participation in this manner has resulted in some persons giving up liquor and some others giving up meat. This, however, cannot be an argument in favour of attending such parties. I am stating how I satisfied my own conscience. I would 1 The letter is not translated here. It referred to a garden party given by the Thakore Saheb of Rajkot on February 17, “where drinks were served”. VOL.31 : 22 MARCH, 1925 - 15 JUNE, 1925 1 not be worried in the least if others act exactly as I do. However, I am aware than, in following my example, others would not merely attend but also run the risk of not discriminating between what should be eaten or drunk and what should not. I even know that this has actually happened. Moreover, a third question arises, viz., how long should we be held back by such fears? In brief, such questions are always most difficult. Discretion should be used by each person in finding an answer for himself. My advice is that in such matters where one cannot see one single way that is to be followed and where action contrary to mine is also proper, the best course for anyone who is ready to act as I advise, is to do as I ask him, disregarding what I myself do. There is danger in imitating my acts. Hence it is advisable that people do not go to places where drinks and meat are served, despite the fact that I do so. There is no connection between my insistence on khadi and my going to a place where liquor was served. It is not a fact that I do not go to any place where khadi is not worn. I am firm with regard to the use of khadi at meetings or organizations over which I exercise con- trol or where my firmness is not misunderstood. In the durbar at Rajkot, not ever- yone was clad in khadi; nevertheless I went there. I do not like attending marriages and such other functions. Hence, when anyone insists on my attending them, if possible I put down the wearing of khadi clothes as a condition. All these are questions which involve discrimination and love. A thing may be proper on one occasion and improper in another. Man is a living being and not an inanimate object like a machine. Hence, among human beings and in the acts of every one of them, there is variation, novelty, apparent contradiction, etc. However, under the divine guidance of truth and love a discriminating observer could but perceive identity in difference, harmony amidst discord and unity in diversity. Love without tolerance is not worth the name. I acquire the right to plead courteously with a Muslim not to slaughter the sacred cow by tolerating such slaughter to begin with. I acquired the right to bring up courteously the subject of prohibition at the Thakore Saheb’s gathering by suffer- ing drinks being served there. Would the Thakore Saheb prevent me from bringing up this subject even if I did not attend his party? Someone may ask this question. The answer is that Thakore Saheb would listen to me because he is polite, but while listening to me he would hardly pay any attention to the subject. However, if I talk of prohibition in spite of having attended his 2 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI reception, he would give careful consideration to what I say and would not let my tolerance go in vain. In conclusion, I should say once again that imitating me in this matter may be dangerous. Hence those associating with me should beware of such imitation. [From Gujarati] Navajivan, 22-3-1925 2. A TEACHER’S PROBLEM Khadi is compulsory in schools because its propagation is in- dispensable for swaraj. A teacher argues as follows against such com- pulsion.1 1. A child being attracted by the colourful foreign clothes of the other members of the family and neighbours accepts khadi as something that is being thrust upon him and, in this way, he learns to practise deceit from his childhood. If you claim that such a child would naturally choose khadi in a school where a majority of pupils wear it, rather than make it detested by making it compulsory. it would be better to let the child be attracted to khadi naturally after it is admitted to the school and allowing some time for the process. The word“compulsory” has been misconstrued here. If atten- ding a national school was compulsory and then the rule of wearing khadi was compulsory, perhaps it could be said that khadi was made compulsory in an improper way. I use the word “perhaps” here because even when education becomes compulsory, certain conditions will still be there for admission. It is difficult to say that such com- pulsion is necessarily improper. Certain subjects will be com-pulsory for the pupils. Moreover, it will also be required that they should be clean when they come to school, should not wear dirty clothes, nor come naked or with gay, multicoloured clothes. Just becasue these are compulsory requirements, would anyone dare to say that they are improper? I have the feeling that the question of compulsion and option arises only in the minds of those who are not firmly convinced about the necessity of khadi. Whether parents approve of it or not, whether the attitude of neighbours is favourable or not, still we cannot but exercise control over children in some matters. For instance, we shall 1 The arguments are summarized here. VOL.31 : 22 MARCH, 1925 - 15 JUNE, 1925 3 have to clothe a naked child coming from the jungles. Afterwards, when it returns home, it may revert to its naked state. If the child uses foul language, we shall have to stop it from doing so. Every teacher would impose many such unavoidable restrictions, and, none of the arguments of the above- mentioned teacher will hold good against them. It is not a fact that wearing khadi had to be made compulsory because we did not succeed in making pupils wear it voluntarily. It is because some persons like me think that the necessary atmosphere has not been created for making khadi compulsory, that spinning and khadi are being made compulsory in national schools. Very often society accepts compulsion because although the spirit is willing, the flesh resists. Hence, many difficulties will be solved if we understand the meaning of the word“compulsory”. Compulsion is that which the rulers by virtue of their authority enforce on subjects in the teeth of opposition and under threat of punishment. If this definition is accepted, there is no basis for the issue that the teacher has raised. 2. Khadi which is worn with understanding, love and in a spirit of rivalary will be worn for a greater length of time. Does the method of being patient for a few days rather than making the wearing of khadi compulsory on the first day serve the original purpose any the less? Understanding, love and rivalry are necessarily involved in our compulsory use of khadi. The burden of making it compulsory lies on the teacher, not on the children. The former will not order them like a policeman, but use whatever skill he has in order to win over the hearts of the children. We are not talking of making them wear khadi on the very first day but of making them wear it after four years [since the establishment of national schools].