UPSC History -DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION IN GANGETIC BIHAR
UPSC History -DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION IN GANGETIC BIHAR
The evidence from the Census did not support an argument about de-industrialization but by comparing the evidence provided in the Buchanan-Hamilton survey between 1809-13 and the Census of 1901 A. K. Bagchi was able to conclude that the percentage of the population in Bihar dependent on secondary industries declined from 18.6% to 8.5%.
his evidence about the decline of artisanal production in Gangetic Bihar in the 19th century was a modern nationalist restatement of the de-industrialization of the country during colonial rule. The argument did not depend on the use of the census data in the manner that Thorner had debunked. However, Vicziany challenged this position of Bagchi on several grounds.
It was argued that Montgomery Martin had put the data collected by Buchanan together in the form of tables in 1838 and therefore there was a need to go back to the original records in the India Office Library in London. Even Buchanan’s own survey could not be very reliable since he covered more than 25,000 miles, averaging over 10 miles a day and was dependent on local informants who may have fed him wrong information because they were fearful of taxes or Company intervention.
The principal objection was that Bagchi had over-estimated the number of people engaged in industrial employment in the early 19th century and therefore he was able to make a convincing case for de-industrialization in Gangetic Bihar. Vicziany contended that Buchanan’s estimate of the spinners was weak and many of the people classified as spinners could not have supported themselves on the basis of spinning. As is very evident some of the objections against Bagchi’s use of data are a matter of interpretation. According to Bagchi the spinners in the early 19th century earned enough to support themselves.
Besides in his view it was sufficient to demonstrate that spinning was the principal means of livelihood for such groups of people, not that it supported them fully. On the other hand the view of Vizcaino was that spinners earned meagre sums and that it would be more appropriate to characterize such groups as part-time spinners. For Bauchi the fact that households were engaged in a multiplicity of economic activities was evidence of prior de-industrialization.
As Sumit Guha has pointed out the calculation of employment in the traditional artisanal sector will depend on the estimates of labour requirements of handspinning to a considerable extent. Bagchi has estimated secondary sector employment on the basis of a ratio of 20 spinners to one weaver in Gangetic Bihar in 1809-13. For his part Twomey follows Om Prakash in assuming that 2.5 spinners are required to supply one weaver with yarn. If Twomey had used Bagchi’s ratio then he would have estimated the decline in employment during the period 1850 and 1880 at 23 million instead of 3.55 million FTJE (Full Time Job Equivalent).
The term FTJE refers to the work done by a number of part-time spinners and weavers that would be equal to the work done by a spinner or weaver if he had been employed fulltime. If Bagchi had used Twomey’s ratio in his revised calculation then the secondary sector employment would be a modest 12.9% of the population instead of 21% in 1809-13. The decline in employment from 12.9% to 10.5% in 1901 would not be a very significant decline.
Sumit Guha for his part has estimated that it would require the output of six spinning FTJE to meet the needs of yarn for one weaving FTJE. As a consequence of this revised ratio of spinners to weavers the loss in employment in the handicraft sector should be estimated at about 7.7 million FTJE. Although Guha revises the estimates given by Twomey upwards he also argues that the ratios of 20 to 1 or even 15 to 1 assumed by Bagchi are very high and unrealistic.
Although Krishnamurthy broadly agrees that there was decline in the number of people engaged in industrial activities in the 19th century he has drawn attention to the specific aspects of this process. In a 1985 IESHR article he argued that Bagchi estimated the number of people engaged in artisan activity in 1809-13, other than in spinning, by multiplying the number of people reported as ‘artisans’ by an assumed family size. This procedure overstates the dependence on industry in the case of the artisan families. However, this procedure does not take into account the industrial activity of other artisan families of Gangetic Bihar. For most women spinning does not appear to have been a major source of livelihood.
It would be closer to the truth to classify women workers in the data for 1809-13 as workers engaged in rice processing than in spinning. On the whole, however, there was a significant decline in the major industries like cotton and silk. By and large there was a shift towards producing coarse cloth, which required coarse handspun yarn. Patna, Gaya and Shahabad became important centres of coarse cloth, like motia or gazi, which was even sold in the North-West Provinces. Maldehi – a fabric produced by mixing cotton and silk was extensively produced in Bihar, as was tusar silk. Some of the minor industries were not badly affected.
The carpet industry did reasonably well and the Karga darris of Patna flourished. The leather industry did suffer a decline because of the increase in the use of foreign-manufactured shoes but the use of Indian leather for making water buckets, bellows, oil and molasses jars survived. The position of the leather workers suffered a decline partly because of the export of hides and the gradual decline and disappearance of customary payments at harvest time. Common pottery too survived in the 19th century.
@BPSC @IndianHistory @UPSC