274 



[October, 1912. 



Of all the points ol variance by far the mo9t prominent is the relation 

 of the state to the co-operative movement. The uncompromising oppo- 

 nent of State assistance in any form will find no support in these mono- 

 graphs. There is no country which does not accord more than mer^ 

 legislative recognition to the co-operative idea. The aid is rendered 

 variously in different states, in the form of legal privileges, assistance in 

 propaganda, financial facilities, direct subvention and otherwise. One 

 may hold that the State aid is often unnecessarily and sometimes injudi- 

 ciously given. One could prove that where the movement is strongest 

 dependence on the state is lightest. Yet on the other hand it is not be 

 denied that the help of Government has been of great service in most 

 countries and especially to certain branches of co operative work, and 

 that but for that help co-operation would not be the vigorous growth 

 that it is today. State aid is not a principle to be condemned or approved 

 in the abstract. There is a time to give and a time to withhold aid. Like 

 every other principle it is relative, and must be applied with direct 

 reference to the circumstances of each country and people and the require- 

 ments of each form of co-operative activity. 



State Aid— Where possible. 



But the writers of these monographs hold no brief for State aid. 

 Their straightforward narrative ought to convince thestraightest theorist 

 that there are circumstances in which such assistance is permissible and 

 even advisable, and that it is a matter on which a man may not dogma- 

 tise. But no attempt is made to uphold State aid as a good thing in 

 itself. On the contrary, the inference everywhere is that a completely 

 self-reliant movement is the ideal, and that Government assistance is only 

 a means to that end— it can never be a substitute for popular inspiration 

 and direction. The essential thing to notice is that in Europe the initial 

 impulse has invariably come from the people. The co-operative idea was 

 evolved to meet changing economic conditions by those who actually felt 

 the pressure of them. Only when that idea had been put to the test of 

 practical working and its efficacy proved did the State come forward with 

 its assistance, an assistance which was not always gratefully received. 

 First and above all things the movement in Europe is a self-conscious and 

 popular one, deriving its impetus from private enterprise and dependent 

 upon its appeal to the people's sense of interest. 



Unique Position in India. 



It is here that the Indian movement occupies a position by itself. The 

 writer of the monograph on India sums up the progress made as "an 

 illustration of State aid effectively administered rather than of organised 

 self-help " We reversed the normal process by beginning at the top. 

 Government not only introduced the idea to India but appointed official 

 Registrars to make it known and to oiganise and guide a co-operative 

 movement. It was the only possible course. The condition of agricult- 

 ural India obviously called for co-operative societies, although the people 

 had not thought the matter out and there was no conscious demand for 

 them. The great danger of the arrangement was the possible official- 

 isation of the movement. Every Registrar on his appointment at once 

 becomes an enthusiast. He is convinced, and rightly, that a widespread 

 co-operative system would mean the regeneration of the rural population. 

 But he finds that the educated classes, the natural organising agency, are 

 apathetic, and the temptation to form societies by official means is strong. 

 The reports show that in mo3t provinces this temptation has been resisted' 



