The Survival Of Handloom Industy

The Survival Of Handloom IndustyA device which is utilise to weave cloth is called loom. A weaken from being momentant source of livelihood, handlooms has remained saviors of the various traditional genetic skills of weavers over generations. The level of artistic ability and sophistication achieved in handloom fabrics are unparallel and only one(a) of its kind. The handloom can correspond up all needs from exquisite fabrics to everyday use.Spinning and weaving were the interior(a) industries of India down to the commencement of the ordinal century. The spinning-wheel and the handloom were universally in use and it is scarcely an exaggeration to state the some half the adult female population of India eked out the incomes of their husbands and their fathers by the profits of their own labour. It was an perseverance particularly suited to Indian resolution life. Each woman brought her cotton fiber from village market, and sold her recite to the village weaver who suppl ied merchants and commercers with cotton. Vast quantities of minute goods, thus pay offd, were exportinged by the Arabs, the Dutch, and the Portuguese and the European nations competed with each other for this mercantile softwood with India.This paper talks about the survival of handloom sedulousness in India, during 19th and early ordinal century, by examining the multilayered structural shifts in Indias handloom industry initiated by Raj. Historians of Indian industrialization measured that the rich crafter tradition in the region had suffered a catastrophic distress in the nineteenth century, after import European manufacturer began to flood Indian market. Taken as a whole in the sequence period covered in the paper, handicraft producing small firms and industries showed much turmoil and increasing isolation. While legion(predicate) industries lost the market, some of them managed to settle in by reconditioning old silks to apply current goods.The first ingredient ta lks about slowdown in handloom industries due to constitution followed by British government in Britain for promotion of her domestic industries and in India to meet the requirements of the manufacturers of Lancashire. The second section talks about transport mutation which lowered the tolls of machine framework and helped in market penetration. The third section talks about survival of exquisite fabrics and advanced school value added products. This paper excessively talks about the supply side harms due to the disbanding of Mughal supremacy in eighteenth century. The later section talks about the experience of famine and Swadeshi s which forced the British authorities in India to resuscitating handloom industries.Policy followed by British governmentBritish, who initially entered in India as mete outrs, established East India lodge in 1600 AD and tried to acquire monopoly in trade of India. In 1765, East India Company got Diwani (right to collect tax revenue) of Bengal. Having right to collect revenue in Bengal, Company stopped importing of gold and silver. Gold and silver compensated for goods imported by Britain.The roused demand for cotton material was curtailed by harsh trade protectionist measures during period 1700-1846. 125 years long commercial and unfair policy followed by British government is one of the grounds for reversal of pattern of trade in cotton textile betwixt Britain and India in the early 19th century. First attempt was initiated in 1700 to ban Indian printed and painted change state. This continued till 1846 to do all achievable to retain bullion with them. utmost tariffs to vicenary restrictions were levied on Indian textile. Only under such a ruthless commercial policy it was thinkable for them to reverse the pattern of trade by coping manufacture of the textiles.As textile market is segmented, they had to get tariffs even after ban impose in 1700 and 1721. Additional ad valorem duty was in alike(p) manner impose d to avoid Indian export to Britain. The tariffs ranged between 27 and 71 per cent in 1813 and were further increase to 37-67% in 1824 and were completely abolished only in 1846. With this prejudice, Britain was non only able to convey over the export market of India but in like manner expanded to in domestic market of India.Tariff straddles for import of muslins, calicoes other cotton clothes manufacturers in Britain1Year Tariffs (in %)1813 27-711824 37-751830 30-101846 AbolishedThese procedures supported and atmosphere where innovation of textile machinery could take place. The machine made fabrics out-competed handloom fabrics of India. Meanwhile the Indian legislature passed various acts between 1833 and 1853 to regulate Trade and gliding and to fix the Tariffs. The duties levied on some principal articles imported into India in 1852 areArticles Imported Duty cotton fiber and silk piece goods, British 5%Cotton and silk piece goods, Foreign 10%Cotton thread, twist and yarns , British 3%Cotton thread, twist and yarns, Foreign 7%(Source The Economic History of India Vol. 2, R C Dutt)In 1859 duties on all articles of luxury were raised to 20 per cent duties on other articles, including cotton piece good, were raised to 10 per cent and those on cotton twist and yarns to 5 per cent, on account of the hefty financial pressure after the mutiny. The 20 per cent duty on luxuries was reduced to 10 per cent, and the 5 per cent duty on cotton twist and yarns was raised to 10 per cent by Mr. pack Wilson the first Finance Minister of India, in 1860 so that the import tariff consisted a uniform rate of 10 per cent. Dutt 1956 This somehow protected the domestic market of handloom industries.The tariff on cotton twist and yarn was reduced to 5 per cent in 1861 which was further reduced to 3.5 per cent in later part of 1861. In 1874, a mandate came from Eng earth that old genuine proceeds, derived from a moderate import duty, should be forgone to meet the requirements of the manufacturers of Lancashire. When every civilized government on earth is subverteavoring to help home manufactures, the Indian government had cruelly repressed the handloom industry.Rapid development of the cotton textile industry in Britain bust indigenous industry in India. No state assistance was rendered in response of the devastation of indigenous handloom in India. It is important to preeminence that indigenous traditional handloom industry constituted enormous part of industrial sector in India. Jawaharlal Nehru2blamed squarely in colonial economic policy, which almost just eschew tariff protection and did zero to help nurture Indian industry. 19th century chauvinistic Dadabhai Naoroji, D D Kosambi and R C Dutt accept made similar arguments in their work.The newly independent Latin American, the United States, Australia, Canada and raw Zealand raised their tariffs to enormous height on imported manufacturers which made the case worse Williamson 2005.Transport diversityFrom about 1810 to 1860, productivity advance leading from the adoption of the reckony organization drove down the relative wrong of textiles world-wide, a trend that was magnified as a world transport conversion lowered the price of European textile imports even further everywhere in the periphery. By the 1830s India transformed into exporter of raw cotton, opium, indigo, etc handle raw materials. There was a gigantic fall in her share in world manufacture production. The share in 1750 was 24.5% which declined to 6.9% in 1830. American civil war (1861-1865) led cotton prices to rouse high. It also led Indian farmers to turn towards cultivation of raw cotton.New high tariffs in old afford export bazaar, European factory based productive intensification and unable to shield own markets with tariffs, the Indian handloom industry became less profitable. As if this were not enough, another powerful global event-transport revolution- induced negative price profane Shah Mohammad and Williamson 2004Railway rates created incentives not only for the geographical reorganization of Indias economic activity but also for the types of production on which it could specialize. That industry was put at a comparative disadvantage was soon recognize. Nationalists complained bitingly about the impact of the structure of rates on infant industries, particularly those not located at the ports. It was not only the structure of rates but their high level that hindered the development of Indian industry. High transport charges increased speak tos and made competition with unlike industry more difficult.Survival of handloom producing high value added productsThe power driven looms was on an average four to six times faster than the hand-driven loom. Why, in the presence of such a wide productivity gap, did the handloom detain at all?Technological improvements and organisational changes led cost to decline. Unless traditional industry tailored its manufacturing pro cess to the new know-how at least partially to internalize these cost returns, it could not prolong as a viable system. Such adjustment itself wasnt an fitted form to guarantee the survival of cottage industry against competition from mass manufactured goods. The author could wait on only when the circumstances existed in the home market which put a premium on feature other than lower prices, as was strikingly visible in the case high quality, imposing cotton fabrics and silk. For high value added products, labour incentive techniques sustained to be competitive, while they could not do up against mass role produce with economies of braggy scale production.In the case of textiles which were closely recognized with the socio-cultural ethos of particular regions of populace, pattern of continued existence was visible. But it is important to note that none of these products catered to a high income market.Roy says, Craft traditions in India were extremely diverse. They contained intermediate good (for example, cotton yarn and dyes), tools for the peasants (ploughshare or hand implements), consumer goods for the brusk (coarse cloth, pottery for daily use, grain poor boying) and commodities for sound-off consumer or the export market (decorated cloth, silk, brassware, carpets, leather goods). The industrial revolution more or less decimated the first three classes. These goods were standardized in quality and could be produced in masses with machines.3Interestingly, the surviving artisans gained from globalization by obtaining access to imported raw materials, distant markets, and useful knowledge. These adaptations, however, didnt receive everywhere, but remained concentrated in certain towns and cities.Supply Side ForcesWe consecrate already looked in to raise British productivity, first in cottage goods and then in factory production, led to declining world textile prices, making handloom production in India increasing unviable. Declining sea freigh t rates and intricacy of railway system in India also toughened these forces and served to foster trade and specialization for both Britain and India. As a result, Britain first win Indias export market and in due course took over of its home market as well Roy 2002. Terms of trade improved significantly in Indias commodity export sector compared to textile, which led the former draw workers away from textile. But we deem not yet considered the local supply side forces like come up incidence of drought and governmental fragmentation.The disbanding of Mughal supremacy in 18th century led to merge supply-side harms for Indian handloom manufactures, even though producers in some area benefited from the fresh order. Profound secular wearing in climate conditions in the century or so following the early 1700s led greatly to slump in bucolic productivity.Jeffrey G. Williamson believes handloom manufacturing could have been affected through several channels following the licent iousness of Mughal hegemony. The first is a decline in overall unsophisticated yield through an increased tide rip weight down, shifting of settlements due to insecurity, and warfare. Increased of the prices of grain (key non-tradable) and at that placefore in relative prices of non-tradable to tradable (textiles) was reflection of reduced outlandish yield. Grain being dominant consumption good for workers and grain betroths being close to subsistence essential have put an upward pressure on the nominal wages in handloom which was being exported Chaudhary 1978, pp 299-300. descending(prenominal) pressure on profit from both above and below was put by declining textile prices and rising nominal wages.As a result of increased rent burden productivity must have suffered and there is no reason to believe revenue lumber to turn down when British became rules of the successors state. appointment in territorial disputes by rules of the successor states may also have increased th e rent burden reflected by military expenses.Disturbance in Indias major trade routes and increased insurance and transportation cost was because of political fragmentation and warfare. The scarcity of bullock, medium of long distance transpiration, power resulting from warfare must have increased transpiration costs. Fragmentary evidence that insurance rates must have gone up during 18th century has also been argued by Irfan Habib (2003).So, we can say that long before Britain flooded the overseas textile bazaar with factory made products, the rise in nominal wages would have slowly dilapidate the long standing sources of Indian competitiveness in those markets. After 1800, Indian textile exports could not hold water the competition of English factory-produced cotton in the world market Moosvi 2002The problems faced by handloom industry in survival can be explained in two main eons. The first eon which was direct result of poor climate conditions and indirect result of the fall o f Mughal hegemony ran till mid 19th century. The weakening of climate conditions raised nominal wages and thus lowered Indias competitiveness with England and other textile producers of world. Further expansion of revenue farming led to increase in the rent burden, warfare increased the prices and regional trade with the sub-continent declined. Indias competitiveness in export market was hut all more by the increase in nominal wages. Also the inter-sector terms of trade moved against Indian handloom production, encouraging a shift to agricultural commodity production like raw cotton, opium, indigo etc.In the second eon, productivity progress resulting from industrial revolution drove down the relative price of textiles world-wide. Also the transport revolution in world and expansion of railway in India lowered the prices of European textile imports everywhere.Comparative advantage factorAccording to K N Chaudhary comparative advantage, which has been strengthened by productivity ad vance on the land or by increasing openness in world economy or both, in agricultural export sector was another possibility of deindustrialization of Indian handloom industry. Increased openness and unambiguous terms of trade improvement are the causes of comparative advantages. In the latter stage this causes lack of competence, little incentive to maximise prospective output and limitation of market of handloom industry. Thus, India lost its manufacturings output share to Britain.Special Case of underlying Province of IndiaThe rise of British Power, competition from British imported cloth which was because of spread of British imperialism and railway combined with supply constraints led to decline of handloom products. But this decline didnt occur simultaneously or affected all weaving castes equally.British export laced the detailed understanding of Indian assays in matter of fashion, style and color which would enable to enter the bazaar effectively. The examination of Indian handloom goods was ordered by repository of State for India to see which of them could be supplied by British manufacturers and remedy absence. This official, J. Forbes Watson, had samples of all key handloom products that were in the Indian Museum in London collected into 18 large volumes. Apart from knowing fabrics worn in India, it was also crucial to know how the garments was worn, for what purpose, by which sex, why certain provision of ornamentation were adopted.Watson pointed out that Europe would in all probability by no means be able to make such items as handloom brocades and embroideries cheaper than India. He commented, This leads us to remark that there are certain fabrics which will probably always be best and most cheaply manufactured by hand.British manufacturers met the requisite of Indian bazaar from scene and collection of specimens. At the very time Watsons exertion became accessible, the price of cotton was brought down by end of American civil war and railwa y from Bombay Nagpur was holy (February 1867). These events were followed by flood of British imports.End of nineteenth centuryTwo decades years later, it is understandable that the handloom industry was facing rigorous competition. The volume of imports was piercingly up and volume of export of country cloth even more stridently down. What is more important to note that average prices of textile were down in both classes, but they were more so for the native products. As if this were not enough, the indigenous products also started to face some competition from Indian machine made clothes by the end of nineteenth century four power looms were operating in Central Provinces, two of them in Nagpur, one in Hinganghat and one in Jubbulpore. Then with the arrival of twentieth century, imitation silk cloth in large quantities from Japan entered the Indian bazaar. The imitation silk cloth was cheaper than both Manchester and Indian cloth.Since better off classes sedate bought fine cloth es with silk borders, the section of industry that specialized in producing these clothes survived, but with diminishing production. Because of bargain rate and appearance of English cloth, it supplanted the products of country handloom. The handlooms were again hit hard in famine of 1899.Edgar Thurston4stated that there was a favorable public response to these cheap imitations of Indian material. He also comments that good taste was the least significant amongst the factors in determining demand.The following two tables talks about average consumption of available yarn by sector from 1906-07 to 1908-9 and from 1916-17 to 1918-19 and sources of cloth supply from 1906-7 to 1908-9 and from 1916-17 to 1918-19. This gives us concrete evidence on fall of handloom industry.Annual average consumption of available yarn by sector 1906-7 to 1908-9 and 1916-17 to 1918-19 (Million lbs.)51906/7-1908/9 1916/17-1918/19Total available yarn 689 (100%) 685 (100%)Consumed by Cotton Mills 162 (23.5%) 338 (49.4%)Handlooms 282 (40.9%) 194 (28.3%)Export 245 (35.6%) 153 (22.3%)Sources of cloth supply 1906-7 to 1908-9 and 1916-17 to 1918-19(Annual averages in million yards)61906/7-1908/9 1916/17-1918/19(%) (%)Total available cloth 3839 (100) 3418 (100)Produced by Indian mill 667 (17.1) 1301 (38.0)Imports 2154 (55.3) 1397 (40.9)Handlooms 1072 (27.6) 720 (21.1)Per capita handiness 12.6 yards 9.8 yardsHome handloom output suffered significantly, between the two periods it felled by one-third. This is clear from second table. Handloom sector never to the full recovered from this blow. Dharma Kumar in The Cambridge Economic History of India says,We dont know how the curtailment of Indian yarns sales affected foreign handlooms, but second table makes it clear that domestic handloom output suffered substantially, falling by one-third between the two periods. This was a blow from which the handicraft sector never fully recovered.Finally, when the English imports fell off. That finer market was partly taken over by Japanese mills using American cotton. virtually good news at the endThe incident of famine forced the government to discard its narrow-minded loyalty to laissez-faire doctrines of non-intervention policy in the economy and caused the British establishment in India to breathe new life into cottage industries. At the beginning of the twentieth century two factors caused the British authorities in India to consider resuscitating cottage industries such as handloom weaving. One was the experience of the famines which forced the government to abandon its authoritative adherence to laissez-faire doctrines of non-intervention in the economy. Encouragement was also provided by the Swadeshi (home-produced) movement launched by Indian nationalist in 1905.Low7wrote, following the blows wreaked by the cycle famines, handloom industry had undergone something of revival. In the first decade of twentieth century, harvest was generally good. Prices for agricultural produ ce were in general high and because of famine and plague mortality, there was demand for labour, which was in short supply. Increased spending on public works and railways, sudden adjunct of the mining industry were undertaken to make good. For all these grounds wages rose, trade flourished, and there was a boost in demand for better sort of handloom goods. 3.5 per cent duty on imported and Indian mill manufactured cloth was imposed in February 1896. Because of this duty, some price advantage was received by handloom industry. dinero and ButterThe machine made fabrics were cheaper then hand looms fabrics but still complete washout was not possible. The rationale for this was that a number of the fragment could by no means be produced. Other sight have also argued that sustained attachment to the coarse cloth by poor and unskilled labors wage was much below that of the weavers and fulltime weaver did the weaving job as part time jobs. Land in England was owned by great landlord th e agriculturists were mere farmers and laborers. Where as in India land belonged principally to small cultivators who have their own hereditary rights in their holding. The landlord, were he existed, cannot get rid of those cultivators so long as they paying their rents. Similarly, the various industries in Indian villages were carried on by humble artisans in their own villages and huts. The idea large factories, owned by capitalist and worked by paid hand, were foreign to the Indian mind.An individual man- in arrogance and aptitude, in prudence and sovereignty- is at his best when he labour in his own field or his own loom, rather than when he is paid laborer under big landlord or wage earner in huge factory. And every Indian believes that landlordism cannot replace the small cultivation and that home industries will survive the assault of capitalism (which is true even today in twenty first century).ConclusionR C Dutt articulated nearly 100 years ago that Britain had transforme d India from an exporter of manufactured goods to an importer of cloth, using political power to keep down a competitor with whom the British manufactured could not have completed on normal terms.For the craft production in India, the late 19th century can be designated as a period of structural crisis when industrial organization were in direct confrontation, and the survival of handicrafts depended on their ability to compete in terms of cost and price advantages, superiority of the quality or the artistic merits of handicraft products. The crisis point reached only in the last quarter of the 19th century when the discovery of chemical dyes resulted in significant economies of scale, and mass-produced cloth began to compete with indigenous materials in Indian markets. Later on, when power-looms had entirely supplanted hand-looms in Europe, Indian capitalist began to start cotton mills in their own country.If the pre-industrial (pre-colonial) production system failed to evolve int o a modern industrial structure due to colonial policies, it then had the inherent say-so to so evolve, and to compete with the technologies and large scale economies of production during transitional stage, before transforming into a modern, capitalist system.