 جویہ حسن فرنس، میں بہت مرسیت میں کہتا ہوں کہ میں ایک درجانی میں نہیں ہیں ، لہذا ایک درجانی نہیں ہے۔ اس میں انگیزارے میں دیکھا ہوں کہ اپنے کچھ بھی جانا ہوں گے حقیطستہ ہی سامان کے باہنے میں آج روکنے میں بھی نہیں ہوتا ہے کھو انگیزارے میں سوائیت کو مجھے بھی نہیں کرتا ہے اور انگیزارے میں مجھے سوائیت کو مجھے پہلے ہوں گے جو اپنے کامیتوں میں بھی مجھے بھی جانا ہوں گے Now that interests me as an economist, ڈانڈی ropes for instance the issue of unemployment to capitalism, which he doesn't call capitalism, but at the same time he also sees the link between unemployment and poverty. These are questions which to this day professional economists shy away from or provide false answers to. جانبین جانبین اس آتا ہے اور ایک جانبینی کے ساتھ من بات لیسے ہیں جانبین جانبین کی نقلہیس تھے انہی because میں نہیں ہوتا ہے جانبین جانبیناء، اس میں اس چیزا بودنے کیا ہے جب جانبینوننے کیا ہے جانبینان ایک ہے جانبینوز جانبین ایک اپنی مدیہ ساری جانبین یہاں میں جانبین میں بہت ایک ایک بارض جانبینوز جانبین لیتھی باقی ہے۔ ہے ، باقی کے بارے میں سے کبھی گاہن some بہت ہوتے ہیں ، وہ آپ کو کامیہ میں بہت اگر بہت پہنچی آئی ہے کیوں گاہن word ، کیوں گاہن思ہدید آئی ہے ، لیکن آپ کو کامیہ میں بہت پہنچی ہے ، کہ میں جب آپ کو کامیہ میں سامنے پہنچی پہنچتے ہیں ، آپ کو کامیہ میں آپ کو آپ کو کامی کی سے ذوہر کم Brandi ڈیوانوز اسی جب بہت جمیئی جو آپ پورا ایک محاورت پر دیکھتے ہیںجو کسی کجте ہوں کہ آپی اندرش Junze's جو آپی بہت منقود لگ Ee جو آپ کو بارک ہے سکتا ہوں کہ جب آپ goats one مقادوں کو دیکھا ہے اس بہت گاندی مقادوں کو ساڑ کا بہت مقادر کا اجتماہی46 جو آپ کو مقادر کے دس طفص کی مقادر پاکت پورا جو آپ جو آپ کو مقادر میں بھی رہے ہیں جس کو کیوں کہ آپ کو ایک کے لئے آپ کے ساتی میں میں ہے جو آپ کو مقادر پرہی سے آنے میں ہے جو آپ کو متوک پردہ ہے۔ کامیونٹی جانتے ہیں۔ now in such a world there is no reason why there should be any unemployment because one person's product is in fact demanded and consumed by the other person there is an exchange taking place amongst them and there's no obvious reason why there should be any unemployment it is true that if such a simple village economy is a money using economy in that case it's perfectly possible that some people may decide to postpone their purchases of goods and hold on to money for some time and in that case even though we are in a very simple world we can you know see visualize in such a world what later has come to be known as kanesian unemployment because if people hold on to money then there is a corresponding reduction in the demand for goods stocks of these goods pile up and if stocks pile up then there may be a reduction in the production of these goods therefore there would be some unemployment or as he would have put it enforced idleness so it's it's conceivable that the introduction of money even into a world of simple commodity production of this kind is something which can generate unemployment but there's no obvious reason and this is something which mark should have talked of in terms of a cmc circuit and a break in the cmc circuit because between the first c and m and m and the second c people decide to hold on to money for a much longer period than they otherwise would have done now there is no reason however why they should decide to do that and consequently even though it's logically possible that you can have unemployment in such a world it is unlikely in fact such a world would typically not be characterized by any kind of unemployment unemployment would arise in such a world if now suddenly you find that there are outside goods coming in and some of the persons in that community decide to buy outside goods instead of local goods and in lieu of the outside goods which they buy they actually sell their own goods which they would otherwise have sold to those whose goods they are now not buying in that case obviously you would find that the group of people from whom demand has shifted to the outside goods would now find that their goods are unsaleable and consequently there would be unemployment now this unemployment is something which can be called unemployment because of a failure to exchange there are a group of petty producers who suddenly find that it is not possible for them that it's it's impossible for them to actually exchange what they have produced because the exchange is taking place along very different lines now this of course is the reason why there is unemployment at all and of course the outside in this case that ghandi was talking about was really the metropolis metropolitan goods coming into the economy of the indian village where a group of petty producers peasants now buy not the locally produced goods but they buy the goods imported from abroad and typically these are machine made goods and that of course generates domestic unemployment i think we should distinguish between two logical possibilities here that it so happened that in the colonial situation unemployment of this kind was because of imported machine made goods but suppose the machine made goods had not been imported suppose they had been locally produced even then they would have been an unemployment because suppose you have hundred petty producers producing hundred units of goods but now suddenly you find that because of machine made goods coming into the picture only fifty people are required to produce the hundred goods then of course out of the hundred petty producers who are displaced fifty may get absorbed as workers امپلوڈ along with machines but the other fifty would not be absorbed so technological unemployment is really a particular case of what i called earlier unemployment as failure to exchange and i think ghandi's recognition of technological unemployment is something which i believe is extremely important i believe it's important because جب ملیہ کیونکہ the fact that you have had working class movements لڈائٹس for instance real working class struggles against the introduction of machinery تکنولوجیکل unemployment has really not been recognized much in the entire discipline of economics the david rikardo the well known classical economist whom marks actually took اس لوگ کے دپارٹچر میں ، کیا کہ اے پر ایک ٹرویipp انروک اگر تکرية ہوئے۔ لیکنہاں کخارجوں میں ،ить کبھی کبھی ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک Look ایک تکرچہ haveا3 عصار ، ہمارے کا Ping باکار کیا ، ساکتے ہیں۔ کے درس میں ہے کہ آپ کو انگرلی ناقز میں بھی بہتaya ہوسکتا ہے کہ یہ ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک ایک انروک جانب جارت ہے اور انا طرح جو بہت زیادہ سکتا ہے جانب اس جانب اس تنیک ہوں کہ آپ مجھے کیا ل Hag رہا ہوں کیا ساتھ پردمانے میں اسے بہت ہوتا ہے جتے ہیں پ翻اب پرشات پرشتی ہے لufen پرشتی کرنے کے لئے یہاں نہیں کرنے اور سیانب سے پرشتی ہے میں nicht امیجیít Sozial無ہ لیے اس سے پس大的 ہر شارج and پس؟ ا融یز و اٹ پkopیلوں کے جست؟ اہم اٹستوں کو اٹستوں کی آ ہے اور اس کے ذالب کو اپی Add câh possibleopot Speak کو پہنچئے از مجھ کمان لہے سب ک shoulder avec de بیرا ہی اور ایین� میںsystem جو ان satu مجھف میں تھوڈی upbeat اُن خریرت стар님 because pure e which اپلائم اپلائی پہلے سے سب سے بے دوگان�� کو کسر ہوتی ہے۔ لیکن انگیزہ میں اس مشنری کیا ہے كانتے دیکھنے سے بار تھا ہے کہ مجھے دوڑ جانتے ہیں کے لئے کچھ ہوسکا ہوتا ہے۔ جیس کے بارنا کے لائیڈ کے دور ہوسکا ہوتا ہے۔ رکارڈو کی اپنی میکنے کا ت subscribers کی مرد سب سے کت کرنے کا تعلیم ہوسکا ہے۔ جب دیماہ نہیں بہت کچھے جب اپنے مجھنری جب کتنے لگہ لگے بردون کی ضرورت ہے اوہ جب الماکنی اپنے اپنے مقارن پر دیگان ہے اور اُس از مقارنے مقارنے مقارنے مقارنے مقارنے میں میں ار لل drih مقارنے میں اجت میں ، بھائیوں جانتے ہیں۔ اگر ہوتا92 جانتا Jones, ان کو مشکلہوں کے بارنے میں مقارنے میں مقارنے میں مقارنے میں اوہ پانٹیکنیOh اوہ بوسٹ اوہ پانٹیکنی Oh اوہ پانٹیکنی ہاتھا تھے آئیییٹ آئیییا دو گساری اوہ پانٹیکنی آئییییا دو گساری میں کیا کہ ہر کنے اتساث spacecraft آئییییہ اوہ بوسٹ اوہ بوسٹ کیا جو بیک کراہتا ہے بہتدین آہییییییییییی کیا جس اینجاہت سیاری بگسی اینجاہٹ اینجاہٹ میشینی سواری اینجاہٹ جو یہ пит انوں سے چاہتی ہے بب apocalypse جو کہ یہ عمیلےumerکی کی نظرа سے рублейabis آد희لہ جو س cartridge رشی ا چenson کی نور ایک باری �utt کردین میں پہلے تھی نلموں کہ special ما luckily جو today ب Abrams Junior جوک پر مقا ساری ہاتھی نہیں infinity ابflu aہ لین اہللہ منکر plane کی بافت کسا حیات کی کامل جا ہے توٹو우� because you don't mean something which is not valid in a colonial context because انہیںOur assuming because of workers getting利axe here you actually have a rise in the rate of profitSwutch occurs this rise in the rate of profit even if it gives rise to a higher rate of accumulation in the accumulation occurs in the metropolis The accumulation doesn't occur here as a matter of factRY مجھئے انہوں کی از reste لامان سے اس کا کھوک میں سب تک مجھایا hookah points مشہر Anyone's Vilb محصول اور محصول اور بہت جانرلی نہیں ہے آپ بھی اگر انہوں میں بہت منحض ہوتی ہے انہوں میں محصول ہے انہوں میں محصول ہے انہوں میں محصول ہے ، انہوں میں محصول کچھ ناکرہا ہے نقر سے ورعا سا چھوے ہوں اور معلومانوں کا ا الوان کو دیتا ہوں جانتا ہوں۔ کیا آپ انگرے کے حدثتی میں بہتسط بڑا ہوتا ہے؟ کیا آپ کلونیل کنتکسٹ کے لئے اور خاترین بہت ک Breeze سانہ可以 کو بھی تک ہوتا ہےکہ جانتا ہے۔ بیٹھنِ افہار مجھے مجھے بہتمارے میں اشتبہ ہی اشتبار سے مجھے گئی ہے۔ جانتھیہ کیا سیسی نہیں ہے کہ مجرد تقفیار ہیں أن یہ مجرد دور because ہے میں اطبق فہرتی ہے اس کی مجرد تک مجرد مجرد یہ تب جہاں بہت چیز기 سے مجرد مجرد مجرد من پر خواہ پہن bagsومنین مجرد مجرد تک مجرد مجرد مجرد مجرد دور جانتھیہ اور دائم% حضورہ کے بارے میں کیا ہے اتنویکمک تک مجرد ایکنومیی کی ایکنومیخز دیتا ہے ، کبہا جانتا ہے کہ ایکنومیخز دیتا ہے کہ کبہا جانتا ہے کہ کبہا جانتا ہے کہ مجھے مجھے کامیٹی کے بڑے کوئی لی جانتا ہے ، لیکن یہ سبلای ساکھتے ہیں ، تو طور پر میں ساکھتے ہیں ، چھوڑا مرسکا بارے میں اعلیس کے لئے اچھا سامنان۔ سب پیقی پیرز پیارز جانتا ہے ropes محکومہ دائیں ، جمین بارے میں آپ چاہفت ہی چاہے سامی لگا ، آپ بہت ہی تم موکہ ہے۔ آپ یہی روحت سامنان ہے۔ئہ اکسی بارے میں جو واقع ہوتے ہیں۔ جیسا کہ کتناس اپنے کی طرح جاتای ہے لوگ' میں ایک حیرت سے افتراد ہے کہ ا ہوس اپنی بھائی ہے کیونکہ پیدای کامتین ہے جساس میں گوہوانا سب سیدہ کر کرتی ہے لیکن یہ سب نہیں ہوتی ہے نیز ہے جسی ہونے کا ملرری لیکن ہوتا ہے لیکن یہ بہن وقت نہیں ہوتا ہے کیونکہ انوہن کو قبول نہیں ہے جس ہیادر نداغوں کی طرح ElderESTICTES اپنے اوہ کیوںکہ سب پرے بہت بہت ہی ہے، ایسی طرح لیکن ہے جب وہ بہت اڈاکی نیمیت میں اختیام کرتا تھا اور اس نے اختیام کرتا تھا ، جب وہ بہت اختیام کرتا تھا کہ آپ کے بہت اختیام کرتا تھا۔ اب اس بہت انالیسیوں سے کوئی اختیام کرتا تھا گوڈزکی کے بارے میں گاندھن ساتھ کتناییی کی سرعہ ہے۔ ہمارے میں کمیونٹی میں تصور دیتے ہیں۔ یہ جب یہ مہارا مہارا ہے کہ یہ لیکن ایسا مہارا ہے جو سب سے بہت پیش کرنے کے لئے یہ مہارا ایک ایکانومیسٹ مہارا ہے۔ بہت پیش کرنے کے لئے یہ دارے کے لئے یہ بہت پیش کرنے کے لئے اس جو اوگورد منعشب کسی اوکورد منعشب معلوم ہے کسی، ایک فرمانی جو اوکورد منعشب کسی را مستحر ہے یہ بہت بہت کسی، if it is the case that within the village community where the fact that some people decided to buy goods from a abroad rather than locally produced goods was the cause of local unemployment. if they stop buying foreign goods then naturally you'll have a revival of demand and revival of employment locally but on the other hand Gandhi's argument is not just that the shunning of foreign goods is a good thing per se that the idea for buying local is not just that you know i should be charitable to my neighbor it is not just an ethical act which enriches me but i think while it is certainly an ethical act but i think there is something more to his understanding there in my mind and that is the fact that the buying locally is a way of re-establishing the community and re-establishment of the community is a way of overcoming the colonization of the mind which he saw as underlying colonialism therefore he had a vision of overcoming colonialism which consisted not just in political independence which consisted certainly not in high rates of growth like these days we emphasize but it actually consisted in ridding your mind from the state of being colonized and this required a degree of empathy with your fellow beings and empathy that was the beginning of the re-establishment reconstitution of the village community of course Gandhi was very firm that the village community could not be reconstituted exactly on its old basis i mean he was totally opposed to untouchability and therefore all these evil practices had to go but on the other hand reading the community of these evil practices we had to reconstitute it because that was because the the destruction of the community is the obverse of the colonization of the mind i think that was a very crucial consideration now in this let me see if i can get another quotation from Gandhi yes it is sinful to buy american wheat and let my neighbor the grain dealer star for want of custom similarly it is sinful for me to buy the latest finery of region street when i know that if i had but worn the things woven by the neighboring spinners and weavers that would have clothed me and fed and clothed him or clothed them on the knowledge of my sin bursting upon me i must confine the foreign garments consign the foreign garments to the flame and thus purify myself and then force rest content with the rough khadi made by my neighbors on knowing that my neighbors may not having given up the occupation take kindly to the spinning wheel i must take it up myself and thus make it popular now while the entire conception is expressed in the language of sin and purity really speaking what he is saying is that my welfare is not independent of the welfare of my neighbor and consequently it is if my welfare becomes dependent on the welfare of my neighbor then that is the beginning of a sense of community and therefore the argument is that i must reconstitute this feeling this this this this empathy with my neighbors as a part of the sense of community now this is something which for instance figured very largely in the gandhi tagore debate tagore's argument which was of course expressed in his writings as well as in his classic novel gharibairi was that look foreign cloth is superior to what is being woven locally as a result as far as the peasants are concerned from the peasants point of view buying foreign cloth is really an improvement in their standard of living if you ask the peasant to get rid of foreign cloth and to buy locally instead then there is a reduction in the peasants welfare that actually the peasant is becoming worse off as a result in particular of course tagore was very sensitive that in a situation like bengal where the bulk of the peasantry was muslim the sodeshi movement was led largely by upper caste hindus that this had a very strong communal dimension but on the other hand gandhi's answer to that was that basically this talk about my welfare getting reduced if i buy locally is something which i reject because my welfare is not independent of the welfare of my neighbor and if so in that case i cannot really simply be oblivious to what is happening to my neighbor and that is something which which which which therefore must enter into my picture or into my conception of my own well being my own well being includes the well being of all my neighbors this was an argument as i said which was not just for increasing local employment not just reducing local poverty not just a question of charity or anything of that kind but above all it was an argument for reviving a sense of community now it's quite interesting that that that both the marxist tradition as well as the gandhi and tradition emphasize this idea of liberation consisting in the revival of a community now of course the nature of the community that marxist are talking about the nature of the community that the gandhi was talking about are completely different but on the other hand this idea that liberation consists in the revival of a notion of community and that enslavement actually in gandhi's conception began with the destruction of this community is a very powerful idea i think this idea of colonization of the mind is something which i think gandhi shares with fano because in the entire third world there are very few writers very very few writers who have a perception of imperialism and colonialism as deep as either fano or gandhi had and there is something in common between gandhi's talking about as i just read out purifying myself by consigning my clothes to the flame and fano's idea that when i actually shoot my white oppressor i'm killing two persons at the same time my oppressor as well as the suppressed me as well as as as as the me who all this time has really been colonized so there is something about you know violence in gandhi's case done to cloth but in fano's case actual resort to violence as a way of of of of liberation and this is being particularly true in a situation where colonialism implies colonization of the mind is really a common feature at any rate i cannot think of anybody else in the 19th century or in in the 1920 centuries who actually had as deep a perception and understanding of colonialism as either gandhi or fano had now i think of course both gandhi and tagore agreed on the fact they agreed on the fact that the peasant buying local cloth as opposed to foreign cloth would certainly mean the peasant being in a material sense worse off tagore's idea was that okay therefore the peasant should be should actually buy foreign cloth gandhi's idea was that no even if the peasant even if the finalies of the region street are not owned by me he's not disputing that region street produces finalies but even if the finalies of region street are not owned by me that should not worry me because my welfare is not independent of the welfare of somebody else so so so the point is that both of them are agreed if you like in an ordering of the quality of the cloth or you know but on the other hand and therefore both of them are i mean gandhi's notion of the reconstitution of the community is one which suggests a transcendence of considerations of materially being better off but on the other hand when you actually look at it i think this is one point where both gandhi and tagore do not appear to have been correct because what happens is the following if you have deindustrialization if you have unemployment technological unemployment being generated this increases the pressure of population on land which it did therefore it lowers the level of real wages therefore it raises the level of rents and therefore the peasants are ultimately worse off because to say that the peasants are better off is to imagine that their income remains unchanged but as a matter of fact once you take their income itself being influenced by what is happening to the artisan population the artisan population being thrown on to the land lowers the peasants income then you find that there is a commonality of interest even in material terms between the peasants and the artisan if this artisan is unemployed then the peasants income drops as a matter of fact historians have pointed out and bipin chandra pointed it out that through the late 19th century because of deindustrialization you actually found a lowering of real wages in rural india and you also found an increase in rents so really speaking the only people who ultimately benefit so so so the peasants who appear to benefit in the short run actually over a period of time are become worse off because of the fact that their incomes again to drop the people who really benefit are on the one hand the kind of you know urban middle men if you like i mean you know the the the the the set of you know the urban class that is engaged in colonial trade and of course the rural landlords because as far as the landlords are concerned not only do they have access to machine made goods which are a better quality and cheaper but what is more their incomes also go up because the rents have gone up so on the whole you find the deindustrialization which digots thought would actually was improving and it was in in in the short run the conditions or the material conditions of the peasantry over a period of time actually worse than it so it would follow from this perspective that as a matter of fact there is a material basis to the sense of community that can be recreated now this material basis of course was developed particularly in the in the in the marxist literature where the idea was that you can actually have a work up as inter lines and the creation of a community now has to occur at a higher level of material production beyond capitalism so if if you like the the while there is a certain commonality of perspective which in the marxist and gandhian traditions about the generation of unemployment in in colonial countries about the fact of association of poverty and unemployment about the destruction of the old community gandhispanacea for unemployment and poverty is a revival of the old community well the marxist panacea would be that actually to create a new order in which you can have a work up as inter lines building or going on to a building of socialism but as i said the idea of development of a certain community as and as as a as a as a as a as a feature of liberation is something which is common to both the traditions now i think one can then ask the question that all right the gandhian tradition or the gandhian conception of a return to the old village community a revival of the old village community is something which of course could not withstand the spontaneity of capitalism capitalism is a spontaneous system it's a self driven system it's a system that does not depend on the will and and and consciousness of individuals it actually operates as an inexorable force driven by its own driven by its own inner logic and manifesting itself in certain tendencies that are imminent in it as marx said said in capitalism even the capitalist is capital personified in other words the capitalist is not doing thing because he wants to do things is not doing things according to his own kind of you know pleasure but he is doing thing because he has driven to he's driven to do certain things he is driven to accumulate so everybody in a capitalist system individual agents are all alienated and as a result you have the system really being driven by an impersonal force now the point is therefore in that kind of a situation a return to the old community in the against the onslaught of the imminent tendency of capitalism was always out there was a period immediately after independence when you had the newly independent Indian state believing that it can actually put some restraints on capitalism and therefore you had a whole lot of measures not only for the revival of agriculture but also for let's say having reservations for handlooms having having a certain kind of protection for petty production but as we know with the emergence of neoliberalism the spontaneity of capitalism has got re-established and this intern has obviously meant that once more we are witnessing an onslaught on petty production and therefore far from going back to the village community we're actually having a destruction of whatever remains of that that village community or that regime of petty production which had characterized India before the onslaught of colonialism so obviously the gun here in paradigm is something which is not really recreatable in my view in the new situation given the imminent tendencies of capitalism you have to go forward and therefore one has to think in terms of a new order in which capitalism is transcended for through our capacitance alliance and going on to socialism but the question nonetheless remains to what extent is the Gandhian vision still relevant by Gandhian vision i mean not that you go back or revive the old village community but by Gandhian vision i mean that unless some restrictions are placed on the pace of technological progress you cannot overcome mass unemployment in poverty i think most people would argue that if we are talking about socialist most people would argue that this the answer to this question turns on the question of property relations that if we are talking about a capitalist economy then obviously in a capitalist economy you can't even have restrictions on the pace of technological progress you can have restrictions on the pace of technological progress in a socialist economy but the argument would be that in a socialist economy you don't need to have restrictions on the pace of technological progress why not because of the fact that any technological progress in socialism can always be used to reduce the hours of work to enlarge leisure now if you do that even if the socialist economy inherits from capitalism mass unemployment therefore they are huge labour reserves which need to be used up suppose you have technological progress increasing labour productivity then what you can always do is that it need not affect the number of people being employed but it can only affect the number of hours that each is made to work for so you can have an enlargement of leisure but no reduction in employment because of technological progress in which case the pace of transition to full employment remains unaffected no matter how high the rate of technological progress so technological progress only reduces the number of hours of work but not necessarily the number of persons working because each person can work for much smaller number of hours of work so this has been the traditional argument as far as socialists are concerned because of which it is said that a socialist economy precisely because it can it can take advantage of technological progress in enlarging leisure a socialist economy does not need to put any restraints as far as technological progress or his pace is concerned and that this is something which would not even stand in the way of the rate at which we progress towards full employment but i believe that this conceptualization has something missing in it and that arises for the following fact that we always think of technological progress under socialism as occurring where let's say people you know labour productivity increases therefore you can produce the same amount with fewer people or with the same people you can produce larger and so on but the point is that any such increase in labour productivity is also associated with a redeployment of labour it's not as if where people are working in the same place exactly in the same factory they suddenly become twice as productive they may i mean they may be cases of that but but typically technological progress implies a substantial redeployment of labour it really implies shifting people from one place to another and this is something which therefore implies necessarily a dislocation in people's lives and it follows therefore that even as technological progress raises the leisure hours increases the scope for leisure it also creates a certain dislocation particularly if we are talking about a socialist economy which has not reached full employment with their substantial labour reserves imagine a person who is dislocated who's unemployed but on the other hand would get employed maybe over a period of time if you have large amounts of unemployment that person is not going to be very happy with being unemployed because you know while while while while it's true that leisure may be increasing for some for society as a whole but on the other hand there are some people who would always be between jobs would be dislocated who would therefore be at least transitionally unemployed and who knows there are going to be only transitionally unemployed as physical human beings you can remain unemployed for a long time now that being the case there is always a cost to technological progress if there's a cost to technological progress then it is not simply a phenomenon that increases leisure hours but it's a phenomenon for which a certain cost has to be paid and that being the case there has to be a certain judgment about whether the pace of technological progress should be rapid how much it should be and so on ideally i would believe in a socialist economy that judgment must be made by the workers as a whole but particularly these costs as i said are going to be quite high in a situation where there is already substantial unemployment and the economy is moving towards full employment in such a world therefore having unrestricted technological پرگرس پرانا صرف اسی مجھے کیا جذبہ کو زرزیت ہوتا ہے۔ اسے ذہب ہے بیک کتنارہ ہوتا ہے کہ کہ باقی کسی بارت کے لئے ببنی اپنے نامی میں ت Someone حکم نے ایک نامیوٹی عاقب پرانا طرف سالی کی تصمیدارât جاری ہے۔ برارت کے لئے ہی رسط سے بڑے ہوتا ہے۔ انکی طرح کے لئے رسط میں باقی کتنارہ تصمیدارت ہے۔ بابا کہ وہ آجہ دیکھے کرتا ہے کہ کہ تبدیل کرنا ہے کہ یہ گراماکتی نہیں ہے اور کیوں جسے مطلب آباہ رہتے ہیں جلیک اندیا میں بھی بھیا روحی تجاوش آئے ، جلیک آباہ یہی کا حال تک انہار دیویشن ہے ، کچھ ایک ہمیں بہت because اور کسی جب سے اندیا کرنا ہے لیکن آپ جانتا ہے اور ہمیں کب کو래 اپنی جانتا ہے لیکن آپ کے لئے آپ کورے دلگہ روحی تجاویش نہیں ہے جب آپ کورے تجاوش ہوتی ہے کہ پرسنس ہمیں ایک درخار ہوتی ہے خوشان امیدستان پر بیٹنڈی کردی سکتا ہے۔ سب کم پیشت کیا بارا ہی اسریارات دیتے ہیں۔ تو اگر کیا بیٹنڈیی سکتا ہے، اس کے مددنے کے لئے حکم یہاں جانتے ہیں۔ انہوں کو تکنڈیا מחطر موجود۔ پاس بہت پیشت کیا ہے دیکھنگ سے مجھورہ نہیں ہے اور ناستان کی کبھیلا scales کو بھی اہیساس یہاں تکنڈیم کیا ہے۔ اسمہارین از بننی شہار کیا ہے۔ انچھے حالات پر حادر پر دلیاں لکھنا ہے کہ اُس بہتگیہ بہت ساتھ ہے۔ پھر انچھے حالات پر دلیاں لکھنا کریں ، انچھے حالات پر دلیاں لکھنا کری ہے کہ اس کبھی کبھی صحیحیت بہت منحل جو ساتھ ہوتا ہے۔ ، جو اس لئے انچھے حالات پر رکھنے کو عکسہ روک کردی، اصلاح پر محل جانتا ہے۔ کوششاہ ساتھ بنسے میں مسا شراہ کی تشاری ہیں۔ Using an Suzuki دیکھ کا ضراما حکومی جازی کے joy کو مطلب عی lines зgregء ہے جانای رو جائےے کہ إنہ warfare مطن Cloud آان ب outer house بات Falls passiert ہے کامی comments راحے ہوتکا باقیم گیرے میں مولا مطابق often ایسانی پردادتی ہے لکاؤا ہوتکا بیٹا ہے اکسانی پردادتا ہے، نکلانے میں ایک اصلاحات شہر بس پیاریگ کہا، کیسا ہم لوگوں سے اکسانی پردادتا ہے کہ ایک ثصائق جانا ہے۔ ایک اچی طرح ایک نظر کے لئے کہ وہ روحان thing فرمی حوالت دیت رہی ہے۔ دیoton پردادت کوئی طرحکہ مولا مولا مولا مولا صرف ایک دیتی ہے۔ώνیں ہورہ بڑے کمارا سے بہتنا رہا ہے۔ گبال بارے میں روشلیت سرکار ہوتے ہیں ، گبال بارے میں روشلیت سرکار ہوتے ہیں ، ویہنے بہت نصف حلیت کرنے میں ہوا ہے ، ہاتھ صرف بہت بہت اندرسی وقتصالی ہیں ، ساتھ شاہت سے دیکھ سکتے ہیں۔ سوییت کل ، ب Animals' کو پیدا کرنے والاímان کے بارے میں سویت کلیٹکیں کی جو司قی پیدا کرنے سے سوکت کرنے گا einzige بہت نیدٹن کے بارے میں because of these were economies, which actually had labor shortage, which is unthinkable in any modern capitalist economy. And it's also interesting that in China, for instance, very similar ideas about restraining technological change or if you like using technology, which can be considered obsolete from a certain point of view was favoured by Mao when he asked for the production of Backyard Steel. So this idea that unrestrained technological progress is something which is inimical to the cause of human liberation is an idea which has been recognised elsewhere and Gandhi I believe saw this idea and that is something which to my mind is indicative of remarkable prescience as well as insight. Thank you very much.