The Indian trade was ruined through restrictive trade practices. During the early stages of
Industrial revolution, Indian goods then exceedingly competitive were levied 70 to 80 %
duties. Even later, the machine made British goods enjoyed 10 to 27 percent duty
advantage over Indian goods manufactured by traditional means. As the Indian finished
goods became less and less competitive, the policies slowly made India an agricultural
colony, and the exports of raw goods feeding the British Empire, rose as finished goods
exports fell. Impoverished masses from the Indian industrial centres rushed to villages to
agriculture. The landowners were already heavily taxed far in excess of previous foreign
rulers. Then the British changed the law, and allowed the new Œcapital holders’ to own
the land in India. The British bought lands for plantations, which were manned by Indian
slave labour. Thus even the agricultural export profits benefited only the British
plantation owners, and not the starving labourers. Let us look at the details of how this
was done. It was a deliberate policy of the Board of Directors of the East India Company,
since 1769. In the early nineteenth century the duty on Muslin and Calico was more than
27 and 71 percent ad valorem, respectively. Even then, British manufacturers were
unable to compete with Indian Manufacturers; hence Britain prohibited the import of
Calico cloths. Heavy protective duties -- 70 and 80 percent, respectively- were imposed
on the Indian silk and cotton goods in England. These ruined those industries in India,
while British goods were imported into India at nominal duty.
[...]
By 1850, India, which had for centuries exported cotton goods to the whole world, was
importing one-fourth of all British cotton exports. In any technology revolution, old
methods must make way for the new ones. But during the industrial revolution, which
was taking place in Britain, the resulting ruin of the millions of artisans and weavers in
India was not accompanied by the growth of new forms of industry in India. The old
populous towns like Dacca, Surat and Murshidabad (which Clive in 1757 had described
as Œextensive, populous, and rich as the city of London) and the like were in a few years
rendered desolate under the ŒPax Britannica’. The population of Dacca, the Manchester
of India, decreased from 150,000 to 30,000! In 1890, Sir Henry Cotton wrote, „ less than
a hundred years ago, the whole commerce of Dacca was estimated at ten million rupees
and its population at 200,000. In 1787 Dacca’s muslin exports to England amounted to 3
million rupees; in 1817 they had ceased altogether. The arts of spinning and weaving∑.
have now become extinct.
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks