Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East

N o t e s o n t h e H i s t o r y . of t h e H a n d l o o m W e a v i n g

I n d u s t r y of I n d i a

Mary Milewski

The de-industrialization school of Indian historiography has traced the "underdevel-

opment"of India to the destruction of the handicraft textile industry by machine-made im-
ports from England. The argument is largely confined to the cotton textile industry and by
and large draws on the experience of Bengal and Bihar (Eastern India). An all India pers-
pective however reveal's a different picture. In Western India the handicrafts textile in-
dustry not only was not destroyed, it in fact continued to grow in the twentieth century.
It is true that the artisans lost their independence and came to be dominated by the
local capitalists of Gujerat. Yet the labor process remained the same. Capitalists made
their profits by cutting the wages of the weavers who were forced to work for any wage that
they could get by the sheer force of economic circumstances.
Even if one were to theorize the collapse of the Bengal cotton textile handicraft in-
dustry, one must take into account not only the protectionist policies of the British (which
prevented Indian textiles from reaching England): a favorite theory of the nationalists, but
also the collapse of the internal demand due to the anarchy and wholesale destruction follow-
ing the demise of Mughal authority in Bengal. A s a recent historian has pointed out, in-
ternal demand for luxury items was a key to the "flourishing" textile industry (Mitra 1978,
160-161). However since this was a luxury demand, and no internal market sufficient to
spur industrial development actually existed at any stage, the masses, who lived in self-
sufficient villages, were outside the circuit of the "industrial" economy. In this sense
we are still talking about a pre-industrial economy and not an industrial economy. Hence
de-industrialization is more a polemical point than a historically accurate one. In fact,
the handicraft textile industry grew in the colonial period, because the local capitalists
who controlled the artisans found no compelling reason to change the labor process. Instead
like the rural capitalists (see preceding paper by Kaiwar) they literally starved the
formerly independent direct producers to maintain their profit margins.

The production and export of cotton
cloths has been an important feature of
Indian history from earliest recorded times.
Originally the cloth was produced entirely
by hand in India, and then sold, both local-
ly and in various ports, first on the Red Sea
and the Indian Ocean and later, following the
establishment of the East India Company, to
European cities as well. The sale of Indian
cloths to England was so successful that the
woolen cloth industry there protested loudly
until Parliament enacted a law prohibiting
the importation of colored calicoes from India
into England in 1700 and in 1720, and another
SOUTH ASIA BULLETIN
VoZ. I. No. 2.
Swnmer 1981.
15
l a w which prohibited even the wearing of
printed or colored calicoes.
The traditional or pre-modern hand-
loom industry was organized around the in-
dividual family unit and was apparently
only a part-time occupation for the bulk of
the people involved. In the villages it
provided clothing, a little income, and
occupation to agriculturists during the off-
season. In the urban areas, weaving was
organizea by caste and was hereditary, but
the hereditary nature of occupational sta-
tus did not inhibit individuals from cross-
ing caste lines when the market for cotton
cloths was good (Venkatraman 1 9 4 0 , 12).
Before the appearance of mill-spun
yarn, the preparation of yarn for weaving
was an important function of the weaver's

Published by Duke University Press

 Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East
extended family. Exclusive of the spinning
of the yarn from raw cotton, it has been
estimated that the preparation of the yarn
for weaving cost fifty percent more to do
than the weaving itself. This preparation
includes winding, warping, and sizing of
the yarn (Buchanan 1 9 3 4 , 79). The bulk of
this preparatory work would have been ac-
complished by the women and children of
the family, some of the work I'put-out'I to
widows in the neighborhood, and some of it
taken on by the weaver himself as a respite
from the tedious job of operating a loom.
In this pre-modern period, the spe-
cialization and delegation of tasks which
included the spinning of cotton into yarn
by the women (a traditional female chore
in many societies) along with other pre-
paratory tasks shared by the family as a
whole, and the weaving and the selling of
the cloth by the male head of the family
who controlled and maintained the means
of production, places the weaving family
in the same situation as the peasant agri-
culturalist. The produce of the weaver's
family was sold by the weaver directly to
the consumer in the local market.
In the urban areas, this organisation
was augmented by a guild system roughly
similar to that of medieval European
guilds. Venkataraman describes this peri-
od just prior to the appearance of British
manufactured yarn as being characterised
by small-scale production, guild organi-
sation, and few intermediaries between
producers and consumers (Venkataraman
1940, 12).
The next stage in the history of
the Indian handloom industry began when
the individual artisans began to come
increasingly under the control of mer-
chants (mahajans, chettis) who provided
capital and acted as a link between
producers and consumers. This has been
called the "domestic system" (Venkataraman
1940, 12). It seems to have developed as
a result of the increased market for Indian
cotton cloths in the early period, then
the increased demand for Indian cotton to
supply the British cotton spinning and
later weaving industries.
In the sixteenth century, before
exports of Indian cotton t o the Westwere
16
Published by Duke University Press
on the decline, the volume of exports from
India carried on by the English totalled
an estimated 1.5 million pieces of cloth
valued at b 2.9 million (Venkataraman 1940,
14).
Another factor which affected the
Indian handloom industry was increased ship-
ments of raw cotton to England which produ-
ced a relative shortage in India. A s capi-
tal increasingly took control over India's
cotton growing industry, the individual ar-
tisan began to lose control over a portion
of his means of production and finally over
the labor process itself. The introduction
of British made machine-spun yarn, and in
1818, Indian production of machine-spun
yarn, undermined the artisan's ability to
control access to his primary raw material,
cotton. It now became increasingly diffi-
cult for the artisan to survive in his trade
without the backing of a local merchant who
not only provided capital to buy mill-spun
yarn but also monopolized access to this
yarn and the markets for the finished pro-
duct.
D.B. Mitra, in his study of the Bengal
weaving industry, discusses the antagonisms
which arose between artisans and merchants
in the period from 1752 to 1837 and descri-
b e s various acts of resistance to this new
form of exploitation, which could be under-
stood as the emergence of class conscious-
ness and class struggle within the cotton
industry in India. Thus, by the middle of
the nineteenth century, the handloom weaving
industry in India had undergone some funda-
mental changes, especially in the social or-
ganization of labor, but also in market or-
ientation and in the development of a class
structure.
By the 1880's, this domestic system had
developed into the system commonly referred
to as the kharkhana system. This involved
the setting up of small shops with anywhere
upto fifty looms operating in it. The
smaller shops were owner-operated with hired
weavers to run extra looms or occasional
labor to help prepare the yarn. Women and
children were still engaged for preparatory
help, but in the larger shops, hired labor
was the norm. It is fairly obvious that the
average weaver could not afford to organize
such a shop. Weavers were constantly in
 Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East
debt to the merchants who controlled the
supplies and the markets. The Ratnagiri
District Report from the Bombay Presidency
Gazetteer of 1880 states that ninety per-
cent of the weavers there earned less than
Rs.lOO (b10) per annum, while in Satara in
1885 the average earnings of the weavers
there were estimated to be Rs. 60-150
(L6-15) per annum. By 1908, in Bengal,
which was once world-renowned for its pro-
duction of fine calicoes, weavers were
said to be "all poor and live from hand
to mouth, and their work is on the decline."
(Bengal District Gazetteer for Angul 1908)
What should have dealt the death-blow
to the Indian handloom production was the
increase in competition from British manu-
factured and Indian manufactured cloths.
During the first half of the nineteenth cen-
tury exports from India to England declined
from 1,266,608 pieces in 1814 to 306,086
pieces in 1846, while British exports to
India increased from 818,208 yards in 1814
to 213,840,000 in 1864 (Venkataraman 1940,
17). But, in fact, the Indian handicraft
textile industry did not die out. Various
district officials in India reported that
the weaving industry in India was primarily
oriented towards the internal Indian market
or inter-district trade , and not foreign
trade as has been generally suggested.
During the nineteenth century, the
number of looms in Ahmednagar District rose
from 213 in 1820 to 1,200 in 1884. In
Pathardi the number rose from 500 in 1850
to 1000 in 1884 (for these and other figures
see Joshi 1936, 43-44). These figures are
not meant to be representative of the Indian
industry as a whole but merely to demon-
strate that it was possible for weavers to
subsist in the face of competition from
cheaper manufactured goods. In fact, the
industry seems to have succeeded better in
some areas, such as Madras and Bombay, while
it was more severely affected in Bengal,
for various reasons, some of which are
indicated below.
In the twentieth century, the total
number of handlooms operating in India
continued to increase:
1921 ----- 1,458,000
1931 ----- 1,806,000
17
Published by Duke University Press
1940 ----- 2,193,000
1950 ----- 2,861,000
(figures are estimates from a variety of
census' listed in Mehta 1953, 106).
Protectionist policies (to an extent), aes-
thetic, religious or traditional preferen-
ces, the specialized nature of some hand-
loom weaving and other factors may have
helped the Indian handloom industry to
survive. Governments, both colonial and
independent, have realized the importance
of supporting an industry which provides
employment (no matter how marginal) to so
many peolpe. In 1921 it was estimated
that nearly 1.5 million people were invol-
ved with the preparation and weaving of
cotton cloth. In 1926 the cotton textile
industry as a whole, including cleaning,
ginning, pressing, carding, spinning, sizing,
weaving, bleaching dyeing and printing
provided employment for approximately 3
million workers in India and only 530,000
of these worked in factories. (1921 figures
Buchanan 1934,75; 1926 figures Venkataraman
1940, 4 ) . At this time it was also said
that a weaver could not earn more than 6
annas (13% c ) per day in Bengal (Buchanan
1934, 78 >.But as has been mentioned already,
the Bengal industry seems to have been par-
ticularly hardpressed due to the collapse
of the internal market for the fine muslins
favored by the royalty and limited supplies
of raw cotton which was now being exported.
(Mitra 1978, 160-161). (See Editors' Note).
The position of the weavers and other work-
ers in the handloom industry is clearly mar-
ginal, although the government has been
attempting during the latter part of this
century to improve the situation, especial-
ly by trying to break the power of the mer-
chants through the organization of co-oper-
atives for purchasing yarn, renting space
and marketing of the goods. (For a dis-
cussion of similar problems of handloom
weavers in Somalia and that government's
attempt to improve conditions, see Alpers,
1981).
An important factor in the survival of
this industry in India as elsewhere seems
to be the industry's concession to "the
universal method of competing ......(
i.e.)
...... reduction in labor costs by reducing
wages......" in the case of the hired
 Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East

artisan or by increased self-exploita- BIBLIOGRIIPHY

tion by the individual artisan or artisanal
family unit. (Mehta 1953, 95).
The years from 1900 to 1939 saw an Alpers, E.A.
increase in handloom production from 646.4 1981 "Futa Benaadir: Continuity and
million yards to 1,703,Z million yards, a Change in the Traditional Cotton
threefold increase, while mill production Textile Industry of Southern
of cloth increased nine times during the Somalia c. 1840-1980"
same period (Naidu 1951, 128). Considering Paper to be presented to the
the increase in the Indian population as a Colloque Internationale, Univer-
whole, the introduction of new technology site de Paris VII, Paris.
such as the fly-shuttle loom and powerlooms,
and increased government support, the survi- Buchanan, D.H.
val of the Indian handloom industry into 1934 The Development of Capitalistic
this century may not seem spectacular in EnterDrise in India
~~

quantitative terms. However, the tedious- New York: MacMillan Company.

ness of the work and the low rewards ( in
1950 in Dharwar, average wages for weavers Joshi, N.M.
were Rs.588 per annum,see Bombay Gazetteer 1936 Urban Handicrafts of the Bombay
for Dharwar 1950) indicate that the tenac- Deccan
ity with which the handloom industry has Gokhale Institute of Politics and
survived in the face of competition from Economics, Publication no. 5.
manufactured cloths is based on an economic
reality : few alternative sources of live- Mehta, S.D.
lihood, especially alternatives which offer 1953 The Indian Cotton Textile Indus-
at least a semblance of maintaining control trv: An Economic Analvsis
over one's own labor power and the means of Bombay: Indian Printing Works.
production.
It also appears that as long as the Mitra, D.B.
Indian people continue to prefer the feel, 1978 The Cotton Weavers of Bengal
design and quality of hand -woven cloths 1757-1853
over the somewhat cheaper manufactured fac- Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Ltd.
similes, the traditional sector will con-
tinue to survive. This was the thrust of Naidu, B.V.N.
the Swadeshi movement in the first decade 1951 "The Handloom Industry in India"
of the twentieth century when the nation- in M.P.Gandhi (ed.) The Indian
alist movement encouraged consumption of Cotton Textile Industry 1851-1950
indigenous handicrafts (thus giving a boost Bombay:
to the handicraft industry) which has to
this day remained an indicator of "high Venkataraman, K.S.
taste" and status among the elite. 1940 The Hand-Loom
-- Industry in South
India
Madras: Diocesan Press.

Editor's Note: It is quite apparent that in connection with the decline of the cotton in-
dustry in Bengal certain aspects need to be researched further: I. There is no available
literature on the pre-colonial cotton industry and the plight of the workers under that
system. Since weavers were often idle and lived in extreme poverty in the 18th century
(Mitra 1978, 217), it is debatable whether the opening up of new and expanded possibilities
like indigo and sugar did not provide employment, however harsh, t o unemployed weavers.
Mere statistics showing decrease in the total number of weavers in the 19th century are
therefore inadequate.

18

Published by Duke University Press

 Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East

11. While the production of luxury cloths certainly decreased after the 19th century in
Bengal, items of daily use for common people continued to be produced by local weavers
(Mitra 1978, 211).
111. The development of the silk industry in Bengal, which not only coincided with the
decline of the cotton industry but also developed in areas previously renowned f o r their
cotton textiles, must have had profound implications for the local economy. It is im-
portant to know whether the export oriented silk industry with higher profits did not
prompt putting-out capitalists to switch their investment to silk rather than cotton.

19

Published by Duke University Press