Spinning Yarns: Bengal Textile Industry in the Backdrop of John Taylor’s Report on ‘Dacca Cloth Production’ (1801) 9780367511135, 9781003052449

Citation preview

SPINNING YARNS

Since time immemorial Indian textiles, especially textiles from Bengal, were in great demand and exported to different parts of the world. Textiles from Bengal were appreciated by the Romans as early as first century ad. Numerous foreign travellers including Chinese, Portuguese, Arab and Persian, have mentioned the delicacy and beauty of Bengal textiles. From the mid-seventeenth century, there was a massive spurt in demand of cloth manufactured in Bengal, but after the British conquest of Bengal in 1757 this industry started to decline. This monograph traces the journey of Bengal textiles till its decline. Among the topics covered include accounts of the admiration for Bengal textiles from far and wide, the different types of textiles that were manufactured in Bengal, the major exporters, the major centres of production, the production system, the Dhaka muslin and the silk industry in Bengal, the procuring system that was adopted by the European / Asian merchants, the condition of the artisans who were the chief pillars of the textile industry and lastly the reasons behind the decline of the Bengal textile industry. This monograph is the first comprehensive volume on Bengal textile industry. It is the outcome of the author’s four and a half decades of work on various aspects of Indian Ocean trade, the activities of the European companies and their impact on Indian / Bengal’s economy. Sushil Chaudhury, who passed away in December 2018, was a former University Chair Professor of Islamic History and Culture, Calcutta University, and a National Research Fellow, Indian Council of Historical Research, New Delhi (January 2014-December 2015). He did his Ph.D. from the University of London as a Commonwealth Scholar. Since 2002 he was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, UK.

SPINNING YARNS

Bengal Textile Industry in the Backdrop of John Taylor’s Report on ‘Dacca Cloth Production’ (1801)

S U S H I L C H AU D H U RY

MANOHAR

2020

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Sushil Chaudhury and Manohar Publishers & Distributors The right of Sushil Chaudhury to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Print edition not for sale in South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan or Bhutan) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-51113-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-05244-9 (ebk) Typeset in Adobe Garamond Pro 11/13 by Manohar, New Delhi 110002

Contents

List of Illustrations

7

List of Tables

8

1. Prologue

11

2. Historical Perspective

19

3. Bengal’s Advantages over other Regions of India

24

4. Production Organization

36

5. The Dhaka Muslin Industry

51

6. Silk Textiles

70

7. Procurement of Textiles for Export

76

8. Role of the European Companies in

Bengal’s Export Trade

89

9. Asian Merchants and Textile Export

112

10. How ‘Poor’ were the ‘Poor’ Indian Weavers?

124

11. Technology in Bengal Textile Industry

156

12. The Decline of the Textile Trade and Industry

161

6

CONTENTS

13. Conclusion

176

Appendices Appendix 1: An Account of the District of Dacca, 1801 by John Taylor, Commercial Resident of Dhaka Edited with Detailed Annotations by Sushil Chaudhury Appendix 2: Letter of a Spinner (Woman) of Santipur, Bengal, published in the Samachar-Darpan of the 5th January 1828 Appendix 3: Names/Terms used in Persian Chronicles in Respect of Textile Production

189

Original Sources

239

Index

251

228 230

Illustrations

(between pp. 128-9) Plate 1: Spinning fine yarn Plate 2: Warping Plate 3: Reeling yarn from a reed Plate 4: Applying the reed to the warp Plate 5: Weaving Plate 6: Forming the heddles Plate 7: Steaming cloths during the process of bleaching Plate 8: Arranging displaced threads in cloth

Tables

3.1. Prices of Two Types of Muslins Khasa and Mulmul 3.2. Cost of Textiles Procured by the Dutch Company

1752/3 and 1754/5 3.3. Expensive Textiles Exported by Companies 1752/3 6.1. Quinquennial Total & Average of Silk Textile Exports

Asian and European Companies 1750/1 to 1754/5 6.2. Production Cost of Taffetas in Kasimbazar, 1756 8.1. Quadrennial Total & Average of Dutch &

English Textile Exports 1710/11-1717/18 8.2. Share (Percentage) of Textile Value in the Total Export

Value Dutch & the English Select Years (1700-55) 8.3. Orders for Textiles from Europe and England

(Number of Pieces Ordered in Select Years) 8.4. Share of Garras and Khasas in the Total

Textiles Ordered (Select Years 1720-50) 8.5. Quinquennial Total and Average of

Annual Textile Exports (Dutch and English, 1730-55) 8.6. Volume and Value of English Textile Exports

(Quinquennial Period, 1740/1-1744/5 & 1748/9-

1752/3) 8.7. Share Percentage of Different Categories

of Textiles Exported by the Companies 1730-55

(First Five Years of Each Decade)

30

33

34

74

74

93

94

96

97

99

101

102

L I S T O F TA B L E S

8.8. Volume and Value of the Dutch and

English Textile Exports 1753/4 and 1754/5 8.9. Dutch-Asiatic Trade (Textiles) [Quinquennial

Total & Average (in Pieces) 1705/6-1709/10 &

1713/14-1717/18] 8.10. Dutch Intra-Asiatic Trade in Bengal Textiles

[Quinquennial Total, Average and Share Percentage

in the Total No. of Pieces 1730-55 (First Five Years of

Each Decade)] 8.11. Percentage Share of Different Textile Categories

Exported by the Dutch to Batavia, Japan and Persia

(First Five Years of Each Decade, 1730-55) 9.1. Geographical Distribution of Piece-goods in

the English Company’s Orders 1681-3 9.2. Geographical Distribution, Unit Price and

Share of Different Areas in the Total Value

of Dutch Textile Export from Bengal to

Holland, 1753-4 and 1754-5 9.3. Quinquennial Total and Average of

Silk Textiles Exports: Asian Merchants and

European Companies 1750/1 to 1754/5 10.1. Manufacturing Costs of Khasas and Baftas in

Burron, 1788 & 1789 10.2. Cost of Garra Production and Weaver’s

Earnings, Birbhum, 1787 10.3. Production Cost of Taffetas in Kasimbazar, 1756 12.1. Export of Textiles from Dhaka by

Asian/Indian Merchants: 1747 and 1797

9 103

104

106

108

117

118

119

134

135

136

165

CHAPTER 1

Prologue

he textile industry in India is a traditional handicraft cottage industry especially in Bengal. From time immemorial Indian textiles were exported, again especially from Bengal, to different parts of the world, including the erstwhile Roman Empire. But it was from the mid-seventeenth century that there was a great demand for Bengal textiles in various parts of the world including Europe. As Bengal was the hub of the textile industry, the Bengal textile trade and industry in the backdrop of the Indian scenario will be discussed. In the process the various similarities as also dissimilarities in the textile industry of the various regions of India in the early modern era will also be touched upon. There is little doubt that the textile industry had a vital role in the socio-economic life of Bengal as also in many parts of India, especially from the mid-seventeenth to mid-eighteenth century. The village economy of the then Bengal was primarily agriculture based – a large part of the population was engaged in agricultural activities. Of these peasant-workers, most of them engaged themselves in weaving textiles in their leisure time. Indeed, in the early modern era, Bengal textile industry was basically a rural cottage industry. Thus in Bengal, as in some other parts of India, the peasant was also a weaver or vice versa. In this production system, the peasant-weaver’s cottage was his workshop. His tools were very few and primitive with which he and his family produced the cloth. The cotton or yarn was purchased by him from the local hat (small village market) and it was his wife who

T

12

SPINNING YARNS

spun yarn from the cotton. Later the whole family helped in weaving the cloth. When finished, the weaver used to sell it in the local hat or to the dalals or merchants of whom there was no dearth in the market. In general, the practice was that the weaver would receive some advance from the merchant-middlemen, dalals, dadni merchants and the likes for buying the raw materials, especially cotton or thread/ yarn and for maintaining himself and his family during the period (about six months) when he would be busy in weaving cloth. When the demand for cloth was high, the weaver worked full-time and found no time for cultivation. Many peasants even turned full-time weavers to meet the demands of the market. At this point one might ask the question: why was there such a high demand for textiles? The answer is simple. Besides the personal needs of the peasant-weavers, there was then a huge demand for Bengal textiles in different parts of Asia including India as also in Europe because of the fact that Bengal textile was not only cheap but also of much superior quality as compared to the other textiles available in the markets. After the discovery of direct sea-route from Europe to Asia by Vasco de Gama in 1498, the demand for Bengal textiles in Europe increased considerably from around the mid-seventeenth century. Thus on the one hand the demand of the Asian merchants and on the other that of the Europeans resulted in a huge amount of textile exported from Bengal till the mid-eighteenth century. But the export more or less came to an end with the British conquest of Bengal in 1757 bringing with it whole-scale repressions by the Company officials, its servants and the gomastas, and after the Industrial Revolution in Britain towards the end of the century, the Bengal textile industry started to decline. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of books written in English dealing exclusively with the Bengal textile industry. Those available are concerned mostly with the muslin industry of Dhaka. For instance, Abdul Karim’s Dhakai Muslin (1965) though a commendable work deals mostly with the Dhaka muslin industry. However, many of his observations are in general applicable to the Bengal industry as a whole. However, it should be pointed out that Karim did not touch upon some very significant aspects of the textile industry. Not only the number of books written in English on the Bengal textile industry

P RO L O G U E

13

are very few but most of them were written more than a hundred years back. James Taylor’s A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Cotton Manufacture of Dacca in Bengal, published in 1851, contains very few details of the Bengal textile industry as whole – N.N. Banerjee’s Monograph on the Cotton Fabrics of Bengal published in 1878 can hardly be relied upon. Moreover this 62-page book is very difficult to get hold of – only seven copies are available in the world and none in India. However, there is significant discussion on the Bengal textile industry in some publications of the last century. For instance, J.C. Sinha’s Economic Annals of Bengal (1927), H.R. Ghosal’s Economic Transitions in the Bengal Presidency (1950), N.K. Sinha’s Economic History of Bengal (vol. 1) (1956) are quite remarkable contributions in this respect. Then again from around the 1970s, several treatises on the economic history of Bengal contain very useful information on the textile industry – K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia (1978), Om Prakash, Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal (1985) and The European Commercial Enterprises in Pre-Colonial India (1998), P.J. Marshall’s, Bengal: The British Bridgehead (1987) and the Sushil Chaudhury’s Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, 1650-1720 (1975) and From Prosperity to Decline: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century (1995). But all of them deal with Bengal/ Indian textile industry only as a part of other themes. Two significant works dealing exclusively with Bengal textile industry in the second half of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century are D. Mitra’s The Cotton Weavers of Bengal (1978) and Hameeda Hossain’s The Company Weavers of Bengal (1988). But there is next to nothing in them about the textile industry in the pre-modern era. Recently an excellent collection of essays on various aspects of south Indian textiles has been published (Giorgio Riello and Tirthankar Roy (eds.), How India Clothed the World?, 2006) which will be helpful in reconstructing the history of the Indian textile industry in some areas. Unfortunately here too one gets only piecemeal discussions of different regions, and not a comprehensive study of the Indian textile industry in the early modern era as a whole. However, so far as the regional studies on textiles in various parts of India are concerned, there are quite a few good works till date. S.

14

SPINNING YARNS

Arasaratnam’s and Vijaya Ramaswamy’s work on south Indian textiles, especially Textiles and Weavers in Medieval South India, Prasannan Parthasarathi’s, The Transition to a Colonial Economy: Weavers, Merchants and Kings in South India, 1720-1800 (2001). Actually while working for more than four decades on various aspects of Indian Ocean trade, the activities of the European Companies and their impact on Indian’s/Bengal’s economy and politics, the commercial enterprises of the Armenians in Bengal/India and their role in the overland trade, etc., in the different archives and libraries of India and abroad, especially in the British Library, London and Algemeen Rijksarchief in Holland, this author has collected a lot of material on the Indian/Bengal textile industry. On the basis of these material as well as those are available as secondary sources, an attempt has been made to write a monograph on Bengal textile industry. For centuries, Bengal textiles were admired all over the world. Foreign travellers and observers, right from the Roman times down to the late eighteenth century, spoke highly of the fine quality and cheapness of the textiles manufactured in Bengal. As such Bengal textiles were exported to different parts of the world till the late eighteenth century when the British occupation of Bengal on the one hand and the advent of the Industrial Revolution in England on the other sounded the death-knell of Bengal’s traditional indigenous industry. Hence one would have expected that there will be at least several works devoted entirely to the Bengal textile industry and trade in the early pre-Colonial era. Unfortunately it is not the case. The various aspects of the Bengal textile industry and trade has been discussed in this monograph. The Introduction outlines the main propositions the author has tried to examine in the book. Chapter 2 is an account of the admiration for the Indian textiles, particularly Bengal muslins, from the Roman times and then by Herodotus, Ptolemy, Pliny, among others and later on by the hordes of foreign travellers who visited India from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Besides, the chapter depicts how the contemporary European observers narrated the wonderful expertise and excellence of the work of the Indian artisans, especially the Bengal weavers and spinners in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. It has also

P RO L O G U E

15

been demonstrated here that Bengal not only produced expensive muslins and fine textiles but also coarse and cheap cloth for which there was a great demand in many parts of the world. In this context the question that naturally crops up is who were the major exporters of these textiles – the Europeans or the Asian merchants? Chapter 3 showcases the advantages that Bengal had over other centres of textile production in India, of which the most important and distinct ones may be identified as (1) abundance of highly skilled labour, specially weavers and spinners; (2) remarkably low cost of production; (3) cheap and highly flexible transport facilities in its riverine network and finally, (4) a flourishing agriculture resulting in cheapness of staples like rice, cotton yarn, silk thread, etc. Besides, the Bengal textile industry had certain special features which were not to be found in any other region. These were: the textile industry in Bengal was basically a rural domestic handicraft industry, it was spread all over Bengal. At the same time it was characterized by localization and specialization achieved through generations. Besides, in common with other major centres of textile production like Gujarat, Coromandel, and the Punjab, Bengal enjoyed for long an active regional and intra-Asiatic trade, the presence of an entrepreneurial class from all over Asia and locally produced cotton and silk. But it should be noted that it was the comparative advantages of Bengal, listed above, over the other centres of textile production that gave it the preponderance in textile trade and industry for centuries, including the period under review. Chapter 4 deals with the production system and organization of the textile industry in Bengal. In this traditional production system, the weaver used to produce cloth in his home with his family. His cottage was his workshop. In this personalized production system, a little capital used to suffice. Sometimes there is reference of head weavers who used to weave cloth with the help of a few other weavers. However, a very important and significant fact about the production system was that the dadni or advanced system was a traditional and integral part of production system. It has also been explained here the raison d’être of the dadni system and its extension in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. Besides, this chapter gives a description of the different stages of cloth production right from spinning to

16

SPINNING YARNS

winding and preparing the yarn, warping, applying the reed to the warp, beaming or applying the warp to the end roll of the loom, preparing the heddles or harness and lastly the weaving, washing, etc. Chapter 5 is mainly concerned with a detailed discussion of the Dhaka muslin industry. Quite a few things like the origin of the word ‘muslin’, why was the Dhaka muslin the most beautiful, where in Dhaka was the cotton suitable for production of muslin grown, who did spinning of yarn for muslin, which were the aurangs where the best quality and most expensive muslin were produced, how expensive were these muslins and finally what was the production organization like in the royal karkhanas or musbool-khas-kothi where muslins for the royalty and nobility were produced in Dhaka are discussed in this chapter. Bengal produced not only muslin or fine cloth and cheap and coarse textiles but also silk, and mixed cotton and silk textiles in large quantities. How and where were these textiles produced, what was the process of silk production, how was the silk yarn and who did it, what was the approximate cost of producing silk textiles and finally the comparative role of the Asian and Europeans in the export of silk textiles in Bengal are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 is devoted to an analysis of the procurement system of textiles adopted by European and Indian/Asian merchants. It was because of the diffusion of textile production in Bengal (not so much in regions), that procurement was not an easy task. However, the Asian/Indian merchants had certain advantages over the Europeans in procuring textiles. In most cases the Asian/Indian merchants employed gomastas who were in general their kith and kin or people who belonged to the same caste. These people were conversant of the local language and as such could directly contract with the weavers for supply of cloth. Moreover they could cover their food and lodging with a small sum of money compared to the Europeans. But in the case of the Europeans, the process was rather difficult. As their employees did know the local language they had to depend on dadni merchants, dalals or paikars for the supply of export commodities. So they had to employ in their principal factories a local person as the chief merchant who used to arrange for the supply of necessary items for export through dadni merchants or dalals. Basically the

P RO L O G U E

17

dadni merchants were the mainstay for procurement of textiles and other export goods. Among the dadni merchants in Calcutta, the dominance was of the Seth and Basak families and in Kasimbazar it was the Katma family. But the main difficulty in procurement of export items, especially textiles and silk was that the Companies suffered from a chronic shortage of liquid capital and they had to borrow from the local credit market, especially from the House of the Jagat Seths. All this is detailed in this chapter. Why and how the Companies came to India/Bengal for trade and what was their role in the export trade of textiles is described in Chapter 8. It also examines why there was a sudden boom in textile export and the comparative role of the English and Dutch Companies in the export of textiles, with quantitative evidence. Besides it gives an account of the different types of cloths exported by the two Companies. It also looks into the role of Bengal textiles in the interAsian trade of the Dutch Company. There has been a consensus among historians for a long time that the European Companies were the major exporters of textiles from Bengal/India and that compared to it the role of the Asian/Indian merchants was insignificant. Chapter 9 has tried to establish with qualitative as well as quantitative evidences that in textile export, not to speak of silk export, the Asians/Indians were much ahead of the Europeans. This scenario was completely reversed after the British conquest of Bengal in 1757. Chapter 10 relates to the condition of the artisans – weavers, spinners, etc. – who were the chief pillars of the textile industry. Here we have tried to ask a few questions – how far mobile were the weavers? Were they willing to leave their habitation in the face of oppression by the ruling authority/mahajans/Company officials? How much freedom did they enjoy? Could they produce cloth according to their choice or well compelled to do so at the dictates of others? Was it possible for them to bargain with the dadni merchants/dalals/paikars at the time of the contract? More importantly, what was the economic condition of the artisans and how much did they earn? In the records of the European Companies, there are numerous references to the poverty of the weavers. Was it a fact or figment of an ‘imagination’ of the Company factors? Last but not the least, the condition of the

18

SPINNING YARNS

weavers in the beginning of the eighteenth century is compared here with that of the weavers towards the end of the eighteenth century. Chapter 11 deals with the debate regarding the absence of technological innovations despite a huge demand for textiles in the eighteenth century. It has also taken up the question how could India/ Bengal afford to meet the demand for the large amount of textiles with the almost primitive form of production system. The next chapter takes a look at the scenario in the other centres of textile production, especially in south, western and northern India in the backdrop of the different aspects of the textile production in India. Lastly, it has been attempted to find out the reasons/causes behind the decline of the Bengal textile industry which began in the second half of the eighteenth century. In conclusion, there is a resume of the main pro­ positions with explanations put forward in the volume. N.B. It has not been possible to identify some of the aurangs (production centres) of textiles. Again, it was difficult to make out what exactly was the type of some of the cloths as most of them have been out of circulation for long and have become obscure. Hence we had to keep the names as found in the records. There might be a little repetition here and there but that was necessary for clarification of some issues.

CHAPTER 2

Historical Perspective

he reputation of the Bengal textiles industry reached its zenith in the early modern era. The textiles produced in Bengal, especially the finer varieties, had received overwhelming appreciation from observers in different countries for centuries. In fact, a variety of Bengal textiles were exported to different parts of the world even more than 2,000 years back. James Taylor noted that the famous muslins of Dhaka were appreciated very much in Europe even in the first century ad. Draped in exquisite muslin attire, the beautiful ladies of the Roman Empire loved to exhibit their figure in them. Muslin was indeed a prized fabric for them.1 Again, an anonymous publication of the first century ad, Periplus of the Erythrean Sea referred to a muslin, ‘Gangitiki’, which came most probably from East Bengal.2 Indeed it was a fact that prominent personalities right from Herodotus and Strabo down to Ptolemy, Pliney, among others referred to Bengal muslins in their works. The Arab geographer and traveller, Sulaiman, who visited India in the ninth century, wrote in his work Silsilat-ut-Tawarikh that ‘cotton fabrics made in the kingdom of Rahmi [which has been identified as East Bengal] are so fine and delicate that a dress made of it may pass through a signet ring’.3 So it is apparent from the above that Bengal textiles were quite well known and exported to various countries of the world. Not only that, the delicacy and beauty of Bengal textiles was noted by numerous foreign travellers and observers who came to India. An Arab traveller from Morocco who visited Bengal in the mid-fourteenth

T

20

SPINNING YARNS

century was so impressed when he saw the muslins in Sonargaon that he remarked that such beautiful and exquisite cloth of so fine a quality could hardly be found anywhere in the world.4 Similarly, the Buddhist monks and travellers who visited Bengal in the fifteenth century, spoke highly of the Bengal textiles. The Chinese traveller Mahuan who visited Bengal in the early fifteenth century mentioned about the muslins of Sonargaon like malmals, etc., and observed that it is a wonder how the people could make such fine quality cloth there.5 Duarte Barbosa, the Portuguese traveller, noticed early in the sixteenth century that ‘different kinds of fine cloth such as estravantes used as headdresses by Portuguese ladies and as turbans by the Arabs and Persians, mamonas, duguazas, chowtars, sinabafa and beatilha were manufactured in Bengal. Though it is difficult to these piece-goods, it may be tentatively suggested that the above terms stand respectively for sirband, malmal, du-gazi cloth, chowtars, sinaband and bethilas.6 Again, the Venetian traveller, Ludovico Varthema, who visited Bengal in the same century noted that varieties of fine fabrics like bairam, mamone, lizati ciantar, donzar and sinabaf, etc., were available here. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the English traveller, Ralph Fitch, wrote that Sonargaon is a ‘town . . . where there is the best and finest cloth made in India.’7 Almost at the same time the greatest historian of the Mughal era, Abul Fazl, noted that ‘the sarkar of Sonargaon produces a species of muslin very fine and in great quantity’.8 Evidently the Bengal textiles, especially, the finer varieties had overwhelming appreciation all over the world for centuries. Even in the late 1760s, the Dutch traveller Stavorinus stated that the Bengal muslins were made so fine that a piece of twenty yards in length or even longer could be put into a common pocket ‘tobacco-box’.9 It was not only the visitors from the West who were surprised by the extreme fineness and exquisite beauty of the Bengal textiles, but even to Robert Orme, the official historian of the English East India Company who lived in Bengal in the early 1750s, it remained a puzzle ‘how works of such extraordinary niceness can be produced by a people . . . who must be deprived of such tools as seem absolutely necessary to finish such manufactures.’10 His ‘surprise was heightened’ when he found that in Dhaka ‘where all the cloths for the use of the king and his seraglio are made’ were of ‘such wonderful fineness as

H I S TO R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E

21

to exceed ten times the price of any linens permitted to be made for Europeans, or any other else in the kingdom’. He tried to account for the exceptional quality of the fabrics by referring to the high skill of the Bengali weavers and comparing it with that of their European counterparts. He wrote:11 As much as an Indian is born deficient in mechanical strength, so much his whole frame endowed with an exceeding degree of sensibility and pliantness. The hand of an Indian cook-wench shall be more delicate than that of an European beauty; the skill and features of a porter shall be softer than those of a petit maitre.

Similarly, the Danish report on the textile production in Bengal written in 1789, also reflected on how ‘through unwearying industry and with the help of a few paltry tools’ the weavers in Bengal produced ‘the prettiest and finest cloths with use of machines’.12 In his famous report on the Dhaka cloth manufacture, John Taylor, the Commercial Resident of Dhaka wrote in 1800 dwelt on the ‘singular beauty of the fabric’ and ‘the extraordinary skill requisite in manufacturing it’.13 But one should remember here that Bengal did not only manufacture muslins and fine textiles, it had at the same time a traditional and flourishing trade and industry in ordinary and medium quality which enjoyed a substantial market in many parts of India and Asia in general. The export of textiles from Bengal to Coromandel, Ceylon, South-East Asia, as also to West and Central Asia in the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century comprised mainly coarse and medium quality piece-goods while the trade with areas in the region of Agra, Lahore, Multan, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea might have been mostly in finer quality fabrics. The European Companies, however, exported both ordinary and fine textiles throughout the period of our study. But they were not interested in sending high quality expensive muslins as there was no demand for these in Europe. However, they exported medium quality and less expensive muslins. It is generally held that there was a boom in the Bengal textile industry with the coming in of the Europeans. Some historians believe that consequent to the export of textiles by the Companies, the textile industry in Bengal prospered immensely which in turn led to a

22

SPINNING YARNS

flourishing economy. It seems quite natural to think so tentatively because it is possible to get complete quantitative data on the Companies’ exports from Bengal in the archives in the British Museum, London or the Algemeen Rijksarchief, in The Hague. And from these materials, it is easy to build a rosy picture of the European exports. As a result, the exports by Asian/Indian merchants from, of which textiles were the most significant items, gets almost lost in the backdrop of the quantified European trade. But in the case of Asian/ Indian trade, the main problem is that quantitative evidence of the Asian/Indian trade is very hard to come by. As a result it is not possible to put forward enough quantitative data on Asian/Indian trade in the face of the European trade and as such the European trade is considered much more than the Asian/Indian trade. But if one goes through the Company records, whether the Dutch or the English, very carefully and meticulously, one would find that the Asians/Indians were equally competing with the Europeans in the commodity market, whether it was market for textiles or for raw silk. In fact, the Europeans were often writing to their Home offices that the Asians/Indians were dominating these markets buying anything and everything they want leaving very few things for them. But if one is a little cautious and keep in mind all the time, the Asian/ Indian perspective, and with a bit of luck, one finds at least some, though perhaps not enough, quantitative evidence on the Asian/ Indian trade. And we are lucky in that respect. With whatever evidence we have at the moment, we can raise the question whether the European trade was more significant than the Asian/European trade in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century? We shall try to find an answer to this question in the present volume. NOTES 1. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, pp. 46-8; Dr. Ure, Cotton Manufacture in Britain, p. 54; Syed Murtaza Ali, ‘Dacca Muslin’, in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. XIII, no. 2, 1968, p. 203. 2. J.C. Sinha, ‘Dacca Muslin Industry’, in Modern Review, April 1925, p. 400. 3. Elliot & Dowson, History of India, vol. 1, p. 5; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 48-52. 4. Ibn Batuta, The Voyages of. . ., vol. 4, p. 122.

H I S TO R I C A L P E R S P E C T I V E

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

23

Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 11. Duarte Barbosa, The Book of . . ., vol. II, pp. 145-6. Ralph Fitch and William Foster, Early Travels, p. 28. Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, ed. Jarett, vol. II, p. 124. J.S. Stavornius, Voyages, p. 413. The ‘tobacco-box’ here meant actually a snuff-box. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 412. Ibid. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, BPP, vol. LXXXVI (JulyDecember 1967), p. 126. Home Misc. 456F, f. 147.

CHAPTER 3

Bengal’s Advantages

over other Regions of India

or a long time Bengal had several advantages over other

F

centres of textile production in India. The most important and distinct ones among them were: (1) Profusion of highly skilled workers/artisans; (2) surprisingly low cost of production; (3) Cheap and highly flexible transport facilities in its riverine network; (4) a thriving agriculture resulting in inexpensive rice, cotton yarn, silk thread, etc. Besides, in common with other major centres of textile production like Gujarat, Coromandel, and the Punjab, Bengal enjoyed for long an active regional and intra-Asiatic trade, the presence of an entrepreneurial class from all over Asia and locally produced raw material like cotton and silk. But it should be noted that it was the comparative advantages of Bengal, listed above, over other centres of textile production that gave it the preponderance in the textile trade and industry for centuries, including the period under review. The entire process of textile manufacture was quite complex and it involved the participation of a host of workmen. Right from the cultivation of cotton or mulberry plants, the spinning of the cotton or reeling of silk, the warping, the fixing of the harness to the warp, and the loom, and the final weaving and washing required highly specialized and technical skill. In its peasant-cultivators, spinners, reelers, weavers and washermen, Bengal had the special expertise needed for the complex craft of manufacturing cloth and silk textiles.

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S

25

The famous muslins of Dhaka and the silk-piece goods of Kasimbazar were the specimens of the workmanship of the highly skilled labour force of the areas – a skill which was transmitted from one generation to another for centuries. And the Bengali workmen produced the finest quality of textiles with the simplest possible tools which provoked Robert Orme to write: ‘. . . the tools which they use are as simple and plain as they can be imagined to be. The rigid clumsy fingers of an European would scarcely be able to make a piece of canvas with the instruments which are all that an Indian employs in making a piece of cambric.’1 There was no dearth of skilled workforce, and in fact, there was an abundance of it in Bengal because of the fact that textiles production was primarily a rural domestic handicraft industry. The members of the whole family, including the children, participated in it. The spinning of cotton or the winding of silk was almost exclusively the monopoly of the women in the family who utilized their traditional and hereditary skill, taking time off the daily chores. The peasantcultivator was often a weaver as well and whenever necessary could shift from one occupation to the other, part-time or full-time, depending on the situation or vice versa. It was almost a common feature in Bengal that even children contributed their part in the complex process of production of cloth. The abundance of labour, together with the cheapness of staples like rice, wheat and yarn auto­ matically kept the production cost lower in Bengal than in other regions. Again, the staples were cheap because of the high productivity in the agricultural sector. Indeed, the legendary cheapness of provisions in Bengal has been attested by all contemporary foreign travellers and observers.2 To all this was added Bengal’s unique advantage of having an affordable and easy transport system for its numerous inland waterways. Almost every important producing area of Bengal textiles was easily accessible through navigable rivers and the cost of transportation from those areas to any trade mart of Bengal or main emporium of northern India or to the ports, for that matter, was probably the cheapest compared to that in any other region of India. So it is no wonder that Bengal enjoyed an unrivalled supremacy in textile trade and industry for centuries and probably even more so for the period under review.

26

SPINNING YARNS

Let us now examine in detail the salient/distinct features of Bengal textile industry. The first notable feature of Bengal’s handicraft industry was that, as we have seen earlier, it was basically a rural domestic industry. There is no denying the fact that the industry thrived in urban areas too but the basic characteristic of the manufacture in Bengal was that it was mostly a rural and domestic industry. Orme’s observation that in Bengal ‘it is difficult to find a village in which every man, woman and child is not employed in making a piece of cloth’ only brings out the predominantly rural character of the industry.3 No doubt the European Companies and to some extent the Asian merchants collected their cloth for export mainly at several trade marts and urban centres but that too through a network of intermediaries who as agents procured their wares from weavers or hats in the rural areas. Dhaka, Kasimbazar, Malda, Hughli, Radhanagar, Santipur, Jugdea, etc., were mainly the emporia rather than prominent weaving centres. The Danish report typically refers to the rural character of the textile industry when it observes that the district of Birbhum, the principal centre of garra (a coarse and cheap calico), was ‘almost solely inhabited by weavers’.4 That the textile industry in Bengal was primarily a rural domestic handicraft industry is borne out by the fact that the weaver was most often than not a peasant farmer. The specialized works such as spinning of cotton, winding of silk, etc., was exclusively done by the women in the peasant/weaver family, and even the children in the family were involved in the process of manufacture. It was not only Orme who noted the ‘assistance which the wife and the family are capable of affording to the labours of the loom’5 but among many others the Danish report too emphasized that the weaver bought cotton which ‘he himself, his wife and family may clean and spin’6 and took the cloth after weaving to the market. Again, Cansius of the Dutch Company, while describing the textile manufacture of Malda district in 1670, stated that the hinterland of the aurungs of the district extended over as many as 350 villages.7 In 1741 the English Council at Kasimbazar noted that the garras, one of the main staples of the European trade, were produced in the ‘town and the villages within the circuit of twenty miles round about Cutwa [Katwa] which town is chief place to which they [merchants and weavers] bring the said cloth

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S

27

when ready in order to send it away by boats or land carriage as the time of the year admits’.8 Even as late as 1757, while considering the proposal of making contract with weavers through gomastas, excluding the dadni merchants or dalals, it noted that the ‘extent of the different aurungs is so very considerable’ that it would require an ‘infinite number of servants to overlook the weavers’.9 So it can be said Orme was not exaggerating the rural character of the textile industry in Bengal when he wrote that ‘the weavers live entirely in villages’ and the weaver was generally ‘living and working with his wife and several children in the hut’.10 It may be noted here that this is rather contrary to the character of the industry in some other parts of India. Though the textile industry in the south like Coromandel was mainly a rural domestic handicraft industry like that of Bengal, in western and northern India it was mainly urban-based or situated close to the urban areas.11 The second distinct feature of the Bengal textile industry was its extremely diffused character. As it was basically a rural domestic industry, the natural corollary was its extraordinary diffusion. And an important factor contributing to the decentralization of the industry was the extensive and comparatively cheap means of Bengal’s riverine transport system. As a result, the textile industry in Bengal could be highly decentralized and spread over a large area, which was not the case in northern and western India. It is important to note here that the ‘vital qualitative difference between production for a purely local market and production for export and inter-regional trade’ was blurred to a considerable extent. Hence whether it was the traditional Asian merchants or the newcomers in the trade – the European Companies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – all had to procure their wares through a network of intermediaries from areas widely dispersed all over Bengal. One of the main reasons why the Companies could not purchase textiles from the weavers directly was, besides their ignorance of the local language and the market conditions, the widespread diffusion of the industry in Bengal. Another distinctive characteristic of Bengal textile industry was its localization. It was not only Robert Orme but even travellers like Stavorinus, among others, who emphasized the fact that every distinct kind of cloth was the product of a particular district.12 Each and every

28

SPINNING YARNS

locality producing textiles had its special characteristics imprinted in the product so much so that, according to the Calcutta Council’s report of 1752, the piece-goods could not be packed in one and the same bale as ‘fabric of every aurung had its peculiar qualities’.13 Let us consider what the main factors were for this localization and concentration of artisans in a particular area. These were the availability of the relevant raw material and ‘the cumulative effect created by a hereditary concentration of craft skills’. It appears that the location of these centres of production was ‘neutral with respect to transport costs’ or other important mercantile considerations because not only the manufacture of luxury cloth was localized but even the same was the case with even coarse and medium quality calicoes. That is why while muslins were produced mostly in Dhaka and silk fabrics in Kasimbazar. Places like Birbhum which were not quite so near the port of shipment area, produced ordinary textiles like garra and Malda which was a more distant place from the considerations of transport and shipment produced both fine and coarse textiles. So it appears that the proximity to the supply of suitable raw materials was one of the main factors behind the localization of textile industry in Bengal. The most famous and the finest muslins were manufactured in Dhaka district where the finest cotton in the world was produced. Likewise the areas around Kasimbazar held the monopoly of manufacturing the silk piece-goods as most of the quality silk was produced in the vicinity of this famous trade mart. This localization (and of course specialization too) was so much an integral part of the textile industry in Bengal that some of the well-known aurungs were named after the particular product of that manufactur­ ing centre. The point can be established with a few illustrations from contemporary records. In 1741, the Kasimbazar Council, while referring to the Maratha invasions, noted that before the Marathas had left, they burnt all the ‘Taffaty aurungs’.14 Again the manufacturing centres of garras in Birbhum and Burdwan were referred in Company records as ‘Garra aurungs’. The English factors at Kasimbazar wrote in 1742 that they were facing extreme difficulty in providing garras as there were hardly ‘four or five hundred merchants that had any gomastas at the Gurrah aurungs’.15 Numerous such references are to be found in the Company records which clearly underline such localized (and specialized too) aurungs.

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S

29

However, there were additional factors which contributed to such localization. As for example, the Fort William Council wrote to the Court of Directors in 1732 that it was almost impossible to make the garras within the factory bounds because ‘every piece [of garras] would be double the price, it is at the particular aurungs where the cotton grows and rice much cheaper’ that garras were made.16 It is to be noted here that all the aurungs in the districts where cloth was made produced their own cotton. As John Taylor informs us, several of the districts which were big manufacturing centres of textiles ‘grew little or no cotton’, drawing their supplies from other parts of the province or the country.17 Notable examples were the districts of Birbhum and Burdwan. While Birbhum needed about 100,000 maunds of cotton, its annual production did not exceed 80,000 maunds and Burdwan imported at least about 50,000 maunds.18 The coarse cotton textiles like garras and dosooties, produced mainly in the above two districts, were generally made of Surat cotton, and the fluctuation in the import of cotton from Surat often affected the price of these fabrics.19 So it appears that along with the twin considerations of raw materials and concentration of hereditary skill, the prices of staples like rice, cotton and silk as also the tradition of making a particular variety in a particular area explain the localization of the textile industry in Bengal. Last and but not the least, another remarkable distinctive feature of the Bengal textile industry was the extent of specialization it had reached during the period under review. It is quite unique that not only every district but even every aurung produced textiles on a specialized basis. Though in general most districts produced most varieties of cloth, it is significant that there was not only regional specialization but often the products of every aurung had their own distinctiveness which differentiated them from the product of another aurung. That was the reason why the same types of piece-goods and of the same size produced in one aurung varied in price from that produced in another aurung, depending on the fineness of quality and workmanship. Though the same types of textiles were produced in several aurungs of different districts, they were generally identified by the name of the aurungs, and not just by the name of the textile. This will be borne out by the following table (Table 3.1) where the different types of the two principal muslins namely, khasa and mulmul

30

SPINNING YARNS

TABLE 3.1: PRICES OF TWO TYPES OF MUSLINS KHASA AND MULMUL

Name of Piece-goods Khasa Malda fine ” ” flowered Cogmaria ” ” ” Orrua ” ” ” flowered Serry ” Burron ” Kumarkhali ” Mulmul Santipur ” ” fine ” ” ” ” Cossajura ” ” ” fine ” ” ” ” ” ” Serry ”

Length & Breadth (in covido) 40 × 3 40 × 3 40 × 3 40 × 2¼ 40 × 2¼ 40 × 2¼ 32 × 1¾ 40 × 2 40 × 2 40 × 3 40 × 3 40 × 2½ 40 × 2 40 × 2 40 × 2 40 × 2¼ 40 × 3 36 × 1¾

Prices per piece Rs. As. 17 22 9 7 7 12 3 4 4 10 16 7 6 11 19 22 30 4

8 5 8 6 12 8 3 12 12 – 8 12 12 – – 8 – –

Source: BPC, vol. 15, pp. 233-4, Annex to Consult., 31 March 1742. One covid = 18 inches.

and their respective prices at which the English Company contracted for with the dadni merchants of Calcutta in 1742 is to be found. Quite a few things are clear from the above table. First, muslin called khasa were produced in several aurungs. So the price of khasa will not be known until and unless one knows the aurung where it was made. Khasa is referred to in the records sometime as khasa Malda, sometime as Khasa Cogmaria, sometime as khasa Orua and sometime as khasa Burron. Second, the price of khasa (for that matter for all sorts of textiles) depended on the aurung where it was manufactured. For example, while the price of khasa Malda was Rs. 17.5, the price of khasa Cogmaria was only Rs. 9.5. The size of the cloth was the same in both cases. Again the same is the case of other muslins like mulmul. While the price of mulmul Santipur (fine) was Rs. 16, that of mulmul Cossajura (fine) was Rs. 30. Third, the price of cloth depended on its size (length and breadth), e.g. khasa Cogmaria

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S

31

(40 co × 3 co) was Rs. 9.5 but if its size was 40 co × 2.5 co, the price came down to Rs. 7. The entire district of Dhaka was known for the production of muslins which were the finest variety of Bengal textiles but the best types of muslins were manufactured only in three aurungs namely Junglebari, Bazetpur and Sonargaon. The finest and the most expensive plain muslins called mulboos khas (royal clothing) were produced exclusively in aurungs during the period. But here again there was difference in the quality of the produce of these aurungs which only brings out the degree of specialization in the various production centres. While the weavers of Junglebari and Bazetpur excelled in muslins of a close texture, those of Sonarpur specialized in making thin and clear muslins.20 It is noted here that not only in weaving but also in spinning, washing, etc., that specialization was a typical feature of Bengal textile industry. The best thread was spun at Junglebari and Bazetpur, ‘the fabrics of which arangs from the great skill with which the cotton was spun, possess a peculiar softness’.21 As the Danish report informs us, there were certain washermen in all weaving districts whose washing can be imitated nowhere’.22 Again John Taylor noted that the art of making jamdanies of embroidered cloth in the loom was the monopoly of the weavers of the Dhaka aurung. These weavers who specialized in manufacturing jamdanies were called ‘jamdani weavers’.23 Similarly, jamawars, an expensive variety of silk-piece goods, were manufactured by weavers who specialized in that particular kind of work.24 The question that crops up here is whether the theoretical concept of ‘important economics of concentration’25 was somewhat blurred by the distinctive features of the Bengal textile industry. The assumption that production for local consumption and local market should be distinguished from production for export and inter-regional trade can hardly applied to the Bengal situation. There is little doubt that the main consideration of manufacturing cloth for local consumption was the availability of cotton or yarn while the consideration of distance, both between manufacturing and consuming areas, and between production centres and the point of final shipment, naturally comes in as the cost of transport is vital for the profitability of the enterprise. Besides, the merchants or the middlemen had to organize

32

SPINNING YARNS

proper inspection through agents to ensure the quality of the finished goods as per specification. If all these considerations were applicable to Bengal, it would have been difficult to explain why cheap and ordinary calicoes like garras, a staple of the European trade, were produced only in Birbhum and Burdwan districts, and both coarse and fine cloth manufactured in Malda, since both the areas, especially Malda, were quite far from the port of shipment. Similarly, if the spatial pattern in the product of mulmuls in Dhaka and taffetas in Kasimbazar can be explained on the ground of special geographical factors and concentration of hereditary craft skills, how can one explain that Dhaka and Kasimbazar also produced coarse calicoes like baftas, salampuries, garras and guineas for export.26 Again, the idea that muslins and silk-piece-goods were ‘high-cost luxury products’ consumed in the richer households and hence the location of production centres of these textiles was ‘neutral with respect to transport costs’ hardly conforms to the fact.27 Of course, the muslins and silk-piece-goods were more expensive than ordinary cloths like garras or baftas. But there were different varieties of muslins or silk-piece-goods with varying range of prices depending on the fineness, workmanship and the aurungs where they were manufactured. Sometimes there was not much of a difference in the prices of several types of muslins, silk-piece-goods, fine calicoes or ordinary textiles. Again within the same variety, the prices could vary widely, depending on the quality of fineness, workmanship and the place of production. The cost prices of some these textiles procured in different parts of Bengal by the Dutch Company in 1752/3 and 1754/5 as shown in Table 3.2, will clearly illustrate the point. The bewildering variety of textiles produced in Bengal – 150 different names of the textiles to be found in the first ten years of the eighteenth century in the English Company records – makes their classification into different categories such as muslins, fine and coarse calicoes, silk and mixed piece-goods an extremely difficult task. Any attempt to do that can hardly be foolproof. John Taylor noted that in Dhaka alone there were more than 100 varieties of cloth manu­ factured.28 And as we seen from Table 3.2, it is equally difficult to state in general terms that muslins and silk piece-goods were high-cost luxury items. Except for certain known varieties of muslins such as

33

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S TABLE 3.2: COST OF TEXTILES PROCURED BY THE DUTCH COMPANY 1752/3 AND 1754/5

Name of Piece-goods

Catagory

Produced in

Piece per piece (in Florins)

Khasa Junglebary Khasa Ordinary Mulmul Ordinary Duriyas Duriyas Bethilas Chowtars Humhums Bandanas Taffetas (Armosijn) Dheris Baftas Guinees

Muslin Muslin Muslin Muslin Muslin Fine calico Fine calico Silk piece-good Silk Silk Silk Coarse calico Coarse calico

Dhaka Hughli Hughli Dhaka Hughli Hughli Hughli Hughli Kasimbazar Kasimbazar Kasimbazar Dhaka, Hughli Hughli, Kasimbazar

72-5 13-15 11-15 46-51 25-9 11-12 12-12.5 11-12 8.9 8.5-9.5 17-18 8.5-9 13-14

Source: Collected and computed from Dutch Export Invoices in VOC records. Note: Guinees were of the size 75 co × 2¼ co while other piece-goods were generally 40 co × 2¼ co. 1 Re = 1.5 Florins.

jamdanies, nainsooks or silk textiles like jamawars, most of the ordinary muslins or silk piece-goods were not really very expensive items. That is why both the English and the Dutch Companies exported a large quantity of these varieties. Though the finest and the best muslins were most expensive, it was not only the fineness of quality which accounted for the high price. As Taylor reported, the same kind of jamdanies which used to cost Rs. 250 in Nawab Sirajudaullah’s time (1756-7) sold at Rs. 450 per piece at the time of Muhammed Reza Khan, the naib-nazim of Dhaka, in the 1760s, not because of ‘any superior fineness of the thread’ but expensive patterns. But the jamdanis exported by the Dutch and English in 1752/3 cost only between Rs. 31 and 43. Some of the costlier varieties of textiles exported by the Companies are mentioned in Table 3.3 along with their respective prices. It should be mentioned here, that the difference in the cost price of the textiles purchased by the two companies may be due to the disparity in the size of the fabrics procured by the companies and

34

SPINNING YARNS TABLE 3.3: EXPENSIVE TEXTILES EXPORTED BY COMPANIES 1752/3

Piece-goods

Category

Dutch Cost: Price (Rs.)

Nainsooks Jamdanies Alliballis Duriyas Jamawars

Muslin Muslin Muslin Muslin Silk piece-goods

43 36 18-31 –

English Cost: Price (Rs.) 31-6 21-2 16-25 12-27 30

Source: For Dutch exports, process calculated from export invoices of VOC records. Price for English exports calculated from Bengal General Journal & Ledgers, Range 175, vol. 54.

because of the different aurungs where the piece-goods were bought. It is not possible to find out all this because of the absence of relevant material in the records. NOTES 1. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 414. 2. For some of the observations, see, S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organiztion, 1650-1720, pp. 4-5, 241-6. 3. Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 400. 4. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, BPP, p. 128. 5. Orme, Historical Fragments, pp. 409-10. 6. Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, p. 126. 7. Report of Henry Cansius on Malda, VOC 1278, ff. 2173-4, 7 September 1670. 8. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 16 October 1741. 9. Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, 30 November 1757. 10. Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 410. 11. K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia, p. 249. 12. Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 413; Stavorinus, Voyages, p. 474. 13. BPC, vol. 25, f. 299, 17 November 1752. 14. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 26 May 1742. 15. Ibid., 3 April 1742. 16. C&B Abstr., vol. 3, f. 180, 25 February 1752. 17. Home Misc. vol. 456F, f. 112. 18. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 104. 19. Beng. Letters Recd., vol. 23, ff. 51, 60; FWIHC, vol. 1, pp. 917-18, 925. 20. Home Misc. 456F, f. 135. 21. Ibid., p. 129.

B E N G A L’ S A DVA N TA G E S

35

22. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, BPP, p. 132. 23. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 12, 20 December 1753; NAI, Home Misc. vol. 61, ff. 183-8. 24. K.N. Chaudhury, Trading World, p. 241. 25. Ibid. 26. It is clear from the export invoices of the Dutch ships from 1752/3 to 1754/5 where an area-wise breakdown of cargoes is available that the Dutch procured baftas from Dhaka and garras, salampuries and guineas from Kasimbazar. 27. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 241. 28. Home Misc. 456F, f. 173.

CHAPTER 4

Production Organization

t may be noted here that an important aspect of the Bengal

I

textile industry in the pre-modern era was that weaving was generally a subsidiary occupation to cultivation and the peasant could easily move from farming to weaving in the slack season or vice versa. This is apparent from James Taylor’s observation in the 1860s:1 A ryot [peasant] quitting his plough to work at the loom or leaving the latter in order to resume the former is a common occurrence, especially among those who make coarser cloths in many parts of India but in Dacca that is seldom the case, weaving being there a distinct trade, to which those practising it devote their whole-time attention.

But in the early eighteenth century, even the weavers in Dhaka were seen taking part in cultivation. It has been reported by the Kasimbazar Council in 1736 that the women spinners and ‘men that served the weavers’ were obliged to ‘apply themselves to agriculture in order to pay their rents’ which were then reported to have gone up considerably’.2 Even John Taylor noted that towards the end of the eighteenth century, a number of weavers in Dhaka cloth for which the demand had gone down significantly had chosen to quit weaving and turned to other occupation, presumably agriculture.3 However, in Bengal it was a long established tradition that the peasant-weavers produced cloth at home for their own consumption. This is borne out in the poems of Mukundram who wrote that the women in the peasant family were spinning cotton for making cloth for their own use.4 It seems that the farmers not only made cloth for their own use

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

37

but also for the market even long before the eighteenth century. This is borne out by the contemporary vernacular literature where there are numerous references stating that the peasant-weavers were taking their manufactures to the local hats for sale and that they were buying cotton, yarn and victuals with the money they received by selling their wares. So it can be said with little hesitation that in Bengal both farming and weaving ran side by side and it was that if one went on, the other could not. Even the poor peasants who lived from hand to mouth did indeed produce cloth for their own use. Again, it may be pointed out that the same peasant caste carried out the functions of all the early stages of silk production – from mulberry cultivation to the winding of cocoons – except perhaps the finishing process which was a highly specialized craft. Along with this small peasant-weaver family as the basic unit of production, we come across in the sources occasional reference to weaving shops and head weavers. The Dhaka factors reported in 1736 about such weaving shops where spinners and men who helped the weavers were working.5 Moreover, while writing about the profit of the weavers in the mid-eighteenth century, John Taylor referred to the head weaver who bought thread for weaving cloth.6 However, though the head weaver is known to have functioned in Hughli in 1670s, he had acted as an intermediary between the weavers and merchants, and exercised some authority over his community. His function and precise status is not known from the sources.7 And it appears that he was not so common a feature of the weaving village in Bengal as he seems to have been in the Coromandel Coast.8 If he had been, we should have noticed his presence in the sources but he is rarely to be seen there. John Taylor, however, reported that the production of some cloth in Dhaka was carried out by master weavers possessing two or three looms and employing an apprentice (nikari) and a journeyman (kareegar).9 At the same time it is interesting to note that in the mid-eighteenth century it was common for respectable families of the weaving community to employ their own capital in manufacturing goods that they sold freely on their own.10 Some of the weavers in Dhaka were even reported to have advanced money to a ‘number of most skilled spinners’ for the supply of the finest thread.11

38

SPINNING YARNS

PROCUREMENT SYSTEM

The dadni (advance) system was an integral part of the Bengal textile industry. Whether Asian merchants or the European Companies, everyone had to procure cloth through a dadan given to the merchant middlemen, dalals, paikars and sometimes directly to the weavers. Occasionally, the Asian merchants used to buy cloth from the open market but in most cases they arranged for their supply by sending their gomastas (agents) to the aurungs where they contracted with the weavers giving them advances. They had the advantage over the Europeans because their gomastas were mostly their kith and kin or belonged mainly to their caste and creed, and were conversant with the local language and market conditions so that they could buy goods at cheaper rates than the Europeans. But the factors of the Companies had no knowledge of the local language or the markets. Besides they could not arrange to collect cloth like the Asians, from remote parts of the country. The goods bought through dadni were called patan or patni. But the good which were bought in the spot market were called khush kharid. However, in all probability, most of the textiles for inter-regional and long-distance trade were produced against advances paid and contracts made under the dadni system. It may be noted here that sometimes rich weavers used their own capital for producing cloth – something which will be apparent from a contemporary observer,12 quoted below, though this was perhaps an exception rather than the rule. It was common practice for respectable families of the weaver caste to employ their own capital in manufacturing goods, which they sold freely on their own accounts. At Dacca in one morning 800 pieces of muslin brought by the weavers of their own accord have been purchased at the door of one gentleman.

The basic raison d’être of the dadni system has been explained in various ways by the historians.13 The common argument with varying degrees of emphasis is that it was necessitated by three important considerations. First, the weavers’ need for finance; the dadni provided him with the cash to buy the raw materials for manufacturing cloth and to sustain himself and his family for the period, extending sometime to six months that took him to finish his work. Second, it

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

39

gave him the necessary security for the purchase of the goods ordered. Third, while on the one hand it played an important role in securing large enough quantity for the merchants who advanced dadney, on the other it was also a way of binding up the producers in the face of competition from other buyers in the market of whom there was no dearth in the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century. Though a traditional system, it seems that the dadni system was quite extended during the period under review to meet the requirements of ‘an expanded and expanding market’. But the suggestion that ‘the need to operate through the system of contracts increased considerably’ with the European demands for specific size, quality, design, etc., can hardly be taken for granted.14 For long Bengal had been supplying her traditional markets in different parts of India, South-East Asia, West and Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea areas and North Africa with varying degrees of standard, size and quality, and hence standardization was not something absolutely new, nor was the volume of this traditional trade in any way less than that of the European trade during the period under review. In this context it should be noted that the dadni or advance system was somewhat different from the verlagg system of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe. In the putting-out system of Europe most of the artisans were supplied with necessary raw materials and cash payment was made out to them with only an advance against their wages. But in the dadni system in Bengal, the weavers were almost in all cases given cash advance only; advance in raw material is extremely rare to come by. Even in the royal karkhanas, as we have seen earlier, the weavers bought and brought their own yarn for weav­ ing. But more importantly, while in Europe at all stages of product­ ion the output belonged to the merchant-financier, in Bengal the producer appears to have retained considerable independence – he had control over his produce until it changed hands and was still the owner of the means of production, though his freedom to fix the price of his goods was not unrestricted. The merchant-middlemen who paid the advance to the weavers had the first claim on the goods and it might be that the debt obligation often exposed the weaver to coercive control of the merchant-financier. But what is extremely significant is that the weaver/artisan was still, in Max Weber’s

40

SPINNING YARNS

terminology, not reduced to the position of a ‘wage earner’.15 So the weaver in Bengal in the pre-colonial period retained the ownership of his means of production – his loom, bought his own yarn independently and at least in theory was the owner of his product. The observation that ‘this was no more than an illusion of ownership’16 perhaps is not wholly appropriate. The transactions under the dadni system were in the form of sales with the weaver/artisan retaining considerable independence. At most, the system promoted the control of merchant capital over the producer and not the process of pro­ duction itself. It was only under the English Company after 1757 that the weavers had virtually become wage workers on terms and conditions over which he had no control.17 It seems that the bulk of the production for medium and longdistance trade was done through advance contract or dadni system, though the Asian merchants might have bought some textiles on the spot market with cash payment. But it is not clear as to what extent in the two sectors – the basic family unit of production with marginal presence of rich weavers investing their own money for production and the dadni contracts – there was an overlapping of functions or whether duality of production was maintained to cater to the demands of trade. Yet what emerges from a close scrutiny of the sources is that there was an increasing division of labour based on caste and occu­ pational differentiation in Bengal textile industry in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. PROCESS OF WEAVING

Almost every stage connected with the production of textiles – from cotton-carding, spinning, unwinding and rewinding the thread, formation of the cloth on the loom, washing, bleaching, dyeing, etc. – was virtually an independent manufacturing activity. The observation of Robert Orme is appropriate in this context. He emphasized that unlike other industries where the craftsmen could perform singly all the different stages of production, the textile industry required the combined skills of several separate groups of craftsmen before the finished cloth could reach the consumer.18 Indeed the weaving of cloth was a very complex process and called for a thorough knowledge

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

41

of the preparation and treatment of the natural thread before it could be made ready for weaving. John Taylor gave a very precise account of the weaving of mulmul in Dhaka around the late eighteenth century which brings out clearly how complicated the process of weaving was.19 Preparation of warp yarn consisted of sorting the thread from different parts of the warp. Approximately eighteen days were taken to soak, rinse and dry the yarn several times before it was sized in rice starch and wound on reels. The warp was next laid by two men over bamboo sticks which had been fixed at regular intervals in the open ground. The warp was fixed to the loom by two men while the reel was attached to the warp by two. It took two men ten to thirty days to fix the warp. Weaving required one or two persons, though for jamdani variety of mulmul, which was embroidered in the loom, a third weaver worked on the flowering. Ordinary assortments were made in 10 to 15 days, the fine variety required twenty days and the superfine thirty days.

Needless to say, the above would be also applicable more or less for Bengal textiles in general. The three main stages of weaving in general were: (1) procurement of kapas or cotton; (2) spinning of yarn from cotton; and (3) weaving with the yarn. Cotton was produced in almost all parts of Bengal and as such there was no dearth of cotton in general in Bengal. H.T. Colebrooke (1804) noted in the early nineteenth century that Bengal produced almost the whole amount of cotton needed for textile production.20 In the case of Dhaka, all the best cotton needed for manufacturing muslins were produced in Dhaka and the neighbouring areas. Edward Baines (1835) wrote that the soil of Sonargaon, Kapasia, Jungleburry, etc., were such that the best cotton was produced in all these places.21 All this will be discussed in detail later when we take up production of muslin in Dhaka. However, it should be mentioned here that a part of the cotton needed for producing garras in Birbhum and Burdwan was imported from Surat in Gujarat. Cotton that was produced in different parts of Bengal had different names. Without going into details of that, we better talk about the cotton that was produced in Dhaka and its neighbourhood because those were the best quality cotton in the whole of the world. Generally in Dhaka two varieties of cotton was produced, namely phooti and

42

SPINNING YARNS

bairati. The quality of phooti was much better than that of bairati. The best quality muslin was produced with phooti cotton. Of course, muslin was also produced by using bairati cotton. Its quality was much inferior to that made with phooti. The phooti cotton was produced only in a small area in the west bank of the river Meghna. The details of this will be discussed in the chapter dealing with muslin production in Dhaka. Here it may only be mentioned that John Taylor specifically noted that the phooti cotton produced in that small area was of the best quality in the whole of the world.22 Cotton plants are generally 3 to 4 ft high and cotton grows twice a year – in the spring and the autumn. As spring cotton was much better than the other varieties, it was cultivated in most of the lands. After the harvest of cotton, rice was grown in these lands. Cotton was grown in a land for two-three years and then kept fallow for a year so that its fertility was kept intact. The best growers of cotton were the Baruis or cultivators of betel leaf.23 The seeds of cotton were to be preserved very carefully against damp weather. About 2 seers of seeds are required to sow a land measuring one bigha (around half an acre?) and one bigha used to produce around 6 maunds of cotton. In every seer of raw cotton, there would be about three-fourths of seeds and only one-fourth cotton. About a third of the cotton, that part adheres most to seeds, is capable of being spun into the finest thread which was absolutely necessary for making the best muslins. The rest of the cotton was used for making inferior quality muslins or other ordinary cotton piece-goods. However, though most of the cotton required for making cloth was produced in Bengal, some cotton had to be imported from Surat and it was called Sironj cotton. This cotton was mostly used for making coarse cloth. Besides a small amount of cotton came from Assam, Tripura, Chittagong Hill Tracts and Arakan. Needless to say, this cotton was used for making cheap and coarse textiles. The said cotton was called bhoga cotton. SPINNING

The cultivation of cotton and the spinning was like a part-time activity

of a peasant-weaver family. They did it like their daily chores in their

leisure hours or taking time off from their other works. But when

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

43

there was a high demand for Bengal textiles, then the peasantcultivator had to devote most of his time in cotton cultivation. But as mentioned earlier, the peasant could turn to paddy or other cultivation after harvesting the cotton crop. Spinning, however, was the exclusive domain of the womenfolk in the peasant-weaver family. They did the work in their leisure hours or taking time off their daily chores. This spinning was a part-time as well as a cottage industry. Generally, these women in the peasant-weaver family did spin from cotton all the thread needed for weaving cloth in the house. However, sometimes it was seen that the weavers were buying thread in the local hat but that might be due to the high demand for cloth for which the home-spun yarn was not enough and hence had to fall back on the local supply. It should be mentioned here that though weaving was a caste-based hereditary occupation in Bengal, there was no caste bias so far as spinning was concerned and even women of high caste including Brahmins, Vaidyas, and Kayasthas spun yarn as did the women of weaving castes like the Jugi, Tanti, Juluha, etc. Thread for coarse varieties was spun by a wheel and for fine varieties by a spindle. Thread was made in all aurungs of Dhaka district but the greatest quantity, and with a few exceptions, the best, was spun in Jungleburry and Bazetpur, the cloth of which aurungs, from the greater skill, with which the thread was prepared, possess a peculiar softness. However, the number of such skilled spinners was not very many. John Taylor noted that their number in Dhaka around 1800 was only thirty.24 Preparing thread from cotton and then spinning was a very difficult and complicated task which needed a host of people. For the details of the process of preparing the thread before spinning, it will be appropriate to quote here from a near-contemporaneous author, James Taylor (1851), who was a commercial resident of Dhaka in the mideighteenth century.25 The cotton in the state of kapas is first cleaned and prepared by the women who spin the yarn. Fragment of leaves, stalks and capsules of the plant are carefully picked out with the fingers, and the wool adhering to the seeds is then carded with the jaw-bone of the boalee fish, the teeth of which, being small, recurved and closely set, act as a fine comb in removing loose and coarser fibres of the cotton, and all extraneous matter. . . . [The spinner

44

SPINNING YARNS

then] sits down to the laborious task of cleaning with this instrument each separate seed of cotton. Having accomplished this, she proceeds to detach the fibres from the seeds. This is done by placing a small quantity of the combed cotton upon a smooth flat board, made of wood of the chalta tree, and then rolling an iron pin backwards and forwards upon it with the hands, in such a manner as to separate the fibres without crushing the seeds. The cotton is next teased with a small handbow, formed of a piece of bamboo with two elastic slips of the same material inserted into it, and strung with a cord made of catgut, muga silk or plantain fibres, twisted together. The bamboo slips are movable within the centre piece, and in proportion to the extent they are drawn out, or pushed back, the tension of the cord is increased or diminished. The cotton having been reduced by the operation of bowing to a state of light downy fleece, is spread out and lapped round a thick wooden roller; and, on the removal of the latter instrument, it is pressed between two flat boards. It is next rolled round a piece of lacquered reed of the size of a quill; and, lastly, is enveloped in the smooth and soft skin of the cuchia fish, which serves as a cover to preserve it from dust and from being soiled, whilst it is held in the hand, during the process of spinning.

Four things were needed for making thread from cotton. These were a spindle (taku), one bamboo basket, a piece of shell embedded in clay and a little hollow stone containing chalk-powder. The spindle is about 10 to 14 inches in length, and is not much thicker than a stout needle. Attached to the spindle, near its lower point, is a small ball of dry clay, to give it sufficient weight in turning. The basket is used to keep the cotton. The third one, the shell, is for keeping the lower portion of the spindle so that it does not get stuck in the soil and can turn easily. The hollow stone with chalk-powder is required so that the spinner could dip her finger so that they are dry at all times. The spinner holds the spindle in an inclined position, with its point resting in the hollow of the piece of the shell, and turns it between the thumb and forefinger of one hand, while she, at the same time, draws out the single filaments from the roll of cotton held in the other hand, and twists them into yarn upon the spindle. When a certain quantity of the yarn has been spun and collected on this instrument it is wound from it upon a reed.26 The thread could be spun only at a certain point of the day – either early morning or late afternoon. A little bit of moisture in the atmosphere is needed while spinning is done. So the spinners used

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

45

to spin usually when the temperature was around 25-56 °celsius. That is why spinning was done from early morning till 9 or 10 a.m. in the morning and from around 3 to 4 p.m. in the afternoon till about half an hour before dusk, when temperature is low and there was some moisture in the air. The best season for spinning was the rainy season. Spinning the finest yarn needed two very important qualities: very high skill and highly sensitive fingers. Hence it was not possible for very young or older women to spin the fine yarn. According to James Taylor, the best thread was spun by women generally under thirty years of age.27 In fact, the ideal age for spinning is between fifteen and thirty. John Taylor noted that a spinner of the best quality thread could produce ‘eight annas weight’ (i.e. half a rupee weight) of thread in a month if she devoted all her time to spinning. But as the spinners generally had other domestic duties to attend to, they could hardly give more than three hours a day to spinning and therefore the average quantity from each spinner was estimated at no higher than quarter of a ‘sicca weight’ (i.e. weight of a sicca rupee which is equivalent to about 2/5 of an ounce) in a month.28 So as the earning was naturally low, there was hardly any incentive to work for long hours. Yet the growing demand for cloth, consequently for yarn too and the urge to supplement family income encouraged the spinners to engage in commodity production. PROCESS OF WEAVING

After the spinning of yarn, the next step was the weaving of cloth, which had several stages, some of which again were very laborious and time-consuming. These were: 1. Winding and preparing the thread: After the thread is ready, it is divided into two parts. The finest of these two portions was used for the woof or burna (bana) and the coarser ones for the warp or tana. The warp thread is then put into water for three days, changing the water twice daily. It is taken out of water on the fourth day and after being rinsed, put upon small reels and then wound on larger ones. The skeins of a convenient size having been wound off, are steeped in water, and tightly twisted between two sticks; they are then left upon the sticks and exposed in the sun to dry for a day or two. They

46

SPINNING YARNS

are next untwisted and put into water mixed with fine charcoal-powder lampblack or soot scraped from the surface of an earthen cooking vessel. They are kept in this mixture for two days, then rinsed in clear water, wrung out, and hung upon pieces of sticks placed in the shade to dry. Each skein having been again reeled is steeped in water for one night, and is next day opened up and spread over a flat board, upon which it is smoothed with the hand, and rubbed over with a paste of khoi (baked paddy from which the husk has been removed by heated sand), and a small quantity of chunam and water. The skeins after being sized, are wound upon large reels and exposed to the sun – the turns of the thread being widely spread over the surface of the reels in order that they might dry quickly. All the thread is again reeled and sorted preparatory to warping. It is generally divided into three shades of quality – the finest for the right-hand side, the next finest for the left-hand side, and the coarsest for the centre, of the warp. Such is the mode of preparing the yarn for plain muslin. The thread for the woof burna or bana is not prepared till two days previous to the commencement of weaving. A quantity sufficient for one day’s work is steeped in water for twenty-four hours. Next day it is rinsed and wound on large reels, and then lightly sized with paste of the same kind as that applied to the warp. From small reels it is wound upon larger ones, and left upon these to dry in the shade. This process of preparing the yarn for the woof is continued daily until the cloth is finished. 2. Warping: The warping was done at an open ground near the weaver’s cottage. For this purpose, four short bamboo posts were fixed in the ground at measured distances, depending on the length of the cloth to be woven, and several pairs of rods placed between them, the whole forming two parallel rows of rods about 4 ft apart. The weaver holding a small wheel of warp-yarn in each hand, passes the latter over one of the posts and then walks along the rows, laying down two threads, and crossing them until he arrives at the post at the opposite extremity. He retraces his steps from this point, and thus continues to traverse backwards and forwards as many times as there are threads of the warp to be laid down. The small wheels or bobbins on which the warp yarn is wound are made of fine splits of bamboo and thread,

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

47

and are each attached at a right angle to a short handle, at the end of which there is a glass-ring through which the thread runs. 3. Applying the reed to the warp: After warping is the process of applying the warp to the reed. But sometimes it is not attached until the warp has been fastened to the end roll of the loom. It is made of fine splits of bamboo firmly fixed between ribs of split cane. James Taylor observed that the reed made in Dhaka was something of a wonder – it is not different from any work of art. The finest reed used in the Dhaka looms contained 2,800 dents in a space of 40 inches in length. In order to apply it to the warp, the latter was folded up in the form of a roll or bundle, and suspended from the roof of the weaver’s hut, with one end of it unfolded, spread out, and hung down within a foot or two from the ground. The reed is then fastened with two slight cords to the bundle and lease rods, and hung in front of the unfolded portion of the warp. Two workmen seat themselves, one on each side of the warp. Having cut with a knife a portion of its end loops, the man in front passes an iron wire or sley hook through the first division of the reed to the other workman and the ends of the two outermost thread being twisted upon it by him, it is drawn back, and the thread is thus brought through. In this manner the wire is introduced through each of them at a time. The ends of the threads are gathered in bunches of five or six, and knotted; and through the loops formed by these knots a small bamboo rod is passed. The workmen then examine all the threads to see if any mistake has been made in placing the warp. If some threads are found to be misplaced, they are laid right, or if broken, united again. After this they roll up the part prepared, and go on in a similar manner until all the warp is prepared, and ready to receive the reed. 4. The warp is then fixed to the loom by two men while the reel is attached to the warp by two. It took two men ten to thirty days to fix the warp. Weaving required one or two persons. Ordinary assortments were made in 10-15 days, the fine variety required 20 days, the superfine 30 days and the fine superfine 60 days. Even after the weaver finishes weaving, there are several other stages involved before he can take the cloth to the market or sell it to the merchant-middlemen. And for every stage there were specialized

48

SPINNING YARNS

people. Washing for example was done by a separate group which specialized in the art, as is borne out by the Danish report on Bengal textile industry: ‘Now the pieces [garras] are to be washed, for which purpose there are certain washermen in all weaving district whose washing can be imitated nowhere’. The art/technique of washing in Bengal in those days was so much developed and the washermen so efficient as to elicit the admiration of the European observers. There was lot of improvement in washing in Europe only after the invention of chlorine in 1774. But even two hundred years before that, the Bengali washermen showed remarkable expertise in the art of washing. The Mughal historian, Abul Fazl, 29 noted that, Egarshindhu (Catarashoonda in James Taylor) in Sonargaon was celebrated in his time for its water which gave a peculiar whiteness to the cloth that were washed in it. James Taylor (1851) mentioned that in his time, local people believed that an area from Naraindeah (Nalinda) to Tejgaon in Dhaka was very good for washing cloth.30 But at the same time it should be taken into account, what J.C. Sinha pointed out that good quality of water is not enough for bleaching cloth, what is equally necessary was the good quality of the detergent/soap and the expertize of the washermen involved.31 The best time for washing cloth is from July to December. During this period there was no dearth of clear and pure water, and gales or gusts carrying dust seldom occur to interfere with the drying of the cloths. It is significant to note here that only Hindus were involved in the profession of washing and there is no evidence of the participation of Muslims in this business. Many of the washermen used to carry out the business in their own land or in a hired one, and employed a large number of labour for washing. Generally very fine fabrics dried up in three quarter of an hour, the medium ones in one and quarter of an hour, and the coarse ones in three hours. After the cloths were washed, a host of workers worked hard to make them ready for the market or for export. Of these people the duty of the nardeahs or nurdeahs was to re-arrange the threads that might have been displaced during the washing. Again if the cloth was damaged in the process of washing, then the rafugars/refukars darned

P RO D U C T I O N O RG A N I Z AT I O N

49

it. They joined the broken threads, removed knots from threads, etc. The rafugars of Dhaka were extremely efficient in their work and would admit none but their male descendants as apprentices in their fraternity. James Taylor observed that most of these rafugars ‘are addicted to the use of opium and, and generally execute the finest work whilst they are under the influence of the drug’. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there were about one hundred and fifty rafugar families living in Dhaka.32 The cost of washing and dressing the finest muslin in the early years of the eighteenth century was around Rs. 10 per piece.33 And James Taylor noted that the cost of washing and dressing a muslin, irrespective of its quality, in the mideighteenth century varied between Rs. 30 and 100.34 The cloths were made soft and smooth by people called kundegurs. Fine cloth like muslins were beaten with chank shells and cloths of a tough texture with a mallet, upon a block of tamarind wood. Rice water was sprinkled over the fabrics during the operation. The persons who ironed the cloths were known as istriwallahs and all of them were Muslims. The very fine and flowered cloths were ironed between sheets of paper. After this the cloths were folded by the nurdeahs, and piled up and formed into bales which were compressed by workmen called bustabunds. This was done by placing them between flat boards, tied together by strong ropes, and tightly twisting the latter with pieces of stick. The usual practice of packing fine muslins was to enclose them into hollow joints of bamboo, one of which, forming a tube about 18 inches in length and 1 inch in diameter, was sufficiently large to contain a standard size piece of muslin. After this, the cloths were ready to be sent to the market/merchant-middlemen or for export. NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

James Taylor, Topography and Statistics of Dacca, p. 73. BPC, vol. 11, ff. 280vo-289, 28 August 1736. Home Misc. 456F, f. 219. T. Raychaudhuri, Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, p. 279. BPC, vol. 11, ff. 288vo-289, 28 August 1736. Home Misc. vol. 456F, f. 145.

50

SPINNING YARNS

7. Om Prakash, Dutch Company, p. 107. 8. S. Arasaratnam, ‘Weavers, Merchants and Company’, IESHR, vol. XVII, no. 3, pp. 265-6, 277. 9. J. Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 78, in D.B. Mitra (ed.), Cotton Weavers, pp. 39-40. 10. Eur. Mss. D. 285, f. 21; William Bolts, Considerations, p. 194. 11. Home Misc., vol. 456F, f. 153. 12. Mss. Eur. D. 283, f. 21; William Bolts, Considerations, pp. 193-4. 13. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, pp. 256-7, 260-1; T. Raychaudhuri, Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, pp. 281-2; Om Prakash, Dutch Company, pp. 88-9; S. Arasaratnam, ‘Weavers, Merchants and Company’, IESHR, vol. XVII, no. 3, pp. 268-9. 14. Om Prakash, Dutch Company, p. 98. 15. Max Weber, General Economic History, pp. 99-101. 16. A.I. Chicherov, Economic Development, pp. 167-75. 17. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of India, vol. 1, pp. 157-60; Hameeda Hossain, Company Weavers, pp. 108-39; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers, pp. 79-87. 18. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 411. 19. Home Misc. 456F, ff. 223-5. 20. H.T. Colebrook, Remarks on the Husbandry, p. 84. 21. Edward Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, pp. 56, 62. 22. Home Misc. 456F, quoted in Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 22. 23. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture of Dacca, p. 13. 24. John Taylor, Home Misc. 456F. 129-31. 25. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture of Dacca, pp. 16-18. 26. Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 24-5. 27. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 18. 28. Home Misc. 456F, ff. 131-5. 29. Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, vol. II, tr. Jarrett and Sarkar, p. 136. 30. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 91. 31. J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, p. 405. 32. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 36. 33. Home Misc. 456F, f. 141. 34. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, pp. 102-3.

CHAPTER 5

The Dhaka Muslin Industry

here is no doubt that of all the Bengal textiles, the most famous was the muslin produced in Dhaka. Muslin, however was produced in many other aurungs (production centres) in Bengal, e.g. in Malda, Santipur, Cossajura, Kagmaria, Kumarkhali, Hughli, Balasore, etc. But the fact was muslin produced in Dhaka was the finest and of the best quality. As noted earlier, it was from around the first century ad, if not earlier, that the Bengal muslin was highly appreciated in the Roman Empire, in the Periplus of the Erythroean Sea, and by travellers and observers like the Arab Sulaiman, the Chinese Mahuan, the Englishman Ralph Fitch, the Portuguese Duarte Barbosa down to the Dutch Stavorinus, and many others. They all agreed that such fine and excellent fabric as the Dhaka muslin was not to be found anywhere in the world. There are many interesting anecdotes about Dhaka muslin. Two of them came from the pen of William Bolts who was a senior official of the English East India Company. He claimed that he heard the stories from the people of Dhaka. One of the stories goes like this: One day Princess Jahanara went to her father, the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who became angry on seeing her and rebuked her for ‘showing her skin through her clothes whereupon the young princess remonstrated in her justification that she had seven jamas or suits on [obviously made of expensive muslin]’. The other story is that in Nawab Alivardi’s time a weaver was chastized and turned out of the city of Dhaka for his neglect in not preventing his cow from eating

T

52

SPINNING YARNS

a piece of ab-i-rawan (running water – one of the most exquisite and expensive muslins) which he had spread and left carelessly on the ground.1 There is a lot of confusion among historians about the origin of the word ‘muslin’. It’s neither Arabic or Persian, nor Bengali or Sanskrit. It is known from Hobson Jobson of Henry Yule and A.C. Bernel that the word came from the Iraqi (earlier Mesopotamia) city of Mosul. In ancient times Mosul was a famous centre of business and there produced very fine textiles. The European traders exported this cloth to their countries and they named this Masuli or Mosulin or Muslin. Later when they saw similar type of cloth in Dhaka, they gave it the same name. However, there was some justification for naming the cloth muslin by the Europeans. First, it was not only that the fine cloth of Dhaka was called muslin but, as Streynsham Master noted, some types of cloth produced in Santipur, Malda, Hughli, etc., were also described as muslin.2 Not only that, even some of the textiles manufactured in Gujarat, Golconda, etc., were also known as muslin. Second, there was no mention of muslin before the advent of the Mughals. It was only during Jahangir’s reign that one comes across muslin. But the name of Bengal muslin is to be found for the first time in Kautilya’s Arthashastra where there is mention of fine cloth of Bangadesh (East Bengal).3 However, there was no allusion to muslin in the texts right from Periplus, Sulaiman, Ibn Battuta, down to even Ralph Fitch or Abul Fazl. Most probably it was the Portuguese traveller Sebastian Manrique and the English traveller Thomas Bowrey who first used the word muslin to describe the fine textiles of Dhaka. Manrique wrote that the fine and exquisite cloth produced in Dhaka is to be found nowhere else. He added that it was only in Dhaka that the most beautiful and expensive muslins about fifty/sixty yards in length and seven/eight yards in breadth are produced. He went on further to state that the muslins were so very fine that the traders could put them into empty shell of bamboos and export them to different countries like Khorasan, Persia, Turkey, etc.4 The French traveller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier corroborated this when he wrote that the Persian ambassador to Delhi, Muhammed Ali Beg, took a thirty yard long muslin putting it into an empty shell of an empty coconut.5 Thomas Bowrey pointed out around the 1670s that a type of muslin called khasa was the most exported cloth from Dhaka.6

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

53

James Taylor who was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka in the mid-eighteenth century wrote that though cloth was woven in many areas of Dhaka, there were only a few places where the finest and the best muslins were produced. Among these, the most famous were Dhaka, Sonargaon, Dhamri, Titabadi (or Titalbadi), Junglebari and Bazetpur. He noted that though the muslin industry was on the wane, there were about 750 families in Dhaka at that time who were engaged in weaving muslins.7 Now let us have a look at the most important centres of muslin manufactures in Dhaka district. One of these famous aurungs was Sonargaon, about 12 miles away from Dhaka city. In the Hindu period it was called Subarnagram and Sonargaon during the independent Muslim Sultanate rule. It was during the Sultanate period that Ibn Battuta came to Dhaka and was very much impressed by the muslin produced there. As mentioned earlier Ralph Fitch, Abul Fazl and others too had appreciated the beauty and fineness of Sonargaon muslins. Sonargaon was a Muslim-dominated area and people there were expert muslin weavers. It was not only the Asian/ Indian merchants but also the European Companies who exported large quantities of muslin. At one time there were about 300 to 400 weavers who were registered with the Sonargaon factory of the English East India Company. And though the muslin industry of Sonargaon declined in the mid-nineteenth century, James Taylor found around 300 weaver families living there.8 Dhamri or Dhamrai is situated on river Banshi, about twenty miles away from Dhaka. It was mostly a Hindu-dominated area and was more famous as producer of very fine yarn rather than as a centre of muslin production. Even in the middle of the nineteenth century, there were about four hundred weaver families here.9 Titabadi or Titlabadi was a prosperous village on the eastern side of the river Kapasia where very fine cotton was grown with which the best quality muslin could be produced. In the mid-eighteenth century. James Taylor found here about one hundred weaver families.10 Junglebari is on the eastern bank of the river Brahmaputra, and now in the present Mymensingh district of Bangladesh. The weavers here were famous for manufacturing one of the best quality muslin. The muslin industry here was the main source of livelihood of the people. But in the early nineteenth century James Taylor found no more than

54

SPINNING YARNS

one hundred weaving households here.11 Bazitpur (Bazetpur) is in the present district of Mymensingh, about 15 or 20 miles from Junglebari. It became famous for producing the best and expensive types of muslins. The muslins manufactured here were very fine and soft because the cotton grown here was of the best quality. In fact, Junglebari and Bazitpur became famous for producing the best and most expensive muslins. Now one might ask the question why was it that the best types of muslins are manufactured in the above places. The answer is: first, the geographical location of these places. The fineness and smoothness of the Dhaka muslin was because of the fact that best quality cotton was grown in Dhaka and its neighbouring areas. As all the aurungs mentioned above were situated in Dhaka district or its neighbouring areas, they could easily get hold of the best cotton and as such could produce the finest and best quality muslins. Second, all the above places, at one time or other, were under the control of some powerful zamindars, royal officials or administrative centres who patronized the production of muslins. Needless to say, without the active support of the ruling class, the muslin industry would not have become so famous. At the same time it should be borne in mind that there were two other factors which facilitated the growth and excellence of the industry. These were the expertise and the unique skill in the art of the spinners and weavers of the areas, and which they learnt and acquired from generation to generation. Without the dexterity of the artisans the muslins of Dhaka would not have earned such approbation all over the world.12 Cotton was produced in almost all parts of Bengal, and of course in Dhaka too. We have already mentioned earlier that two varieties of cotton were grown in Dhaka – phooti and bayrati. Of these, phooti was the best and it was the thread spun of this type of cotton which was most suitable for manufacturing very fine and soft muslin. Of course, muslins could also be made from the yarn of the bayrati cotton but their quality would be much inferior to that of the muslin made with the yarn of the phooti cotton. But the phooti cotton was produced, as we have noted earlier, only in a small area on the west bank of the Meghna River. The said area was about 40 miles in length and 3 miles in breadth. It comprised the parganas of Kedarpur, Bikrampur,

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

55

Rajnagar, Kartickpur, Srirampur and Idilpur. The sea is in the vicinity of the Meghna here and as such the river bank was flooded with sea water for about three months every year. The sea water, in its train, brought in silt which ‘very considerably improve[d] and fertilise[d] the soil’. At the same time the freshness of the sea air had some beneficial effect in nourishing the cotton plants. John Taylor, who was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka around 1800, noted that no where in the world such fine and good cotton as phooti of Dhaka was ever produced.13 John Taylor has given a vivid description of the complex process of muslin production – right from the cultivation of cotton plantation, spinning of cotton, weaving of muslin from the fine yarn, then washing, ironing, etc. As he was the Commercial Resident in Dhaka, he was well aware of the production system and submitted a detailed report to the Board of Directors in London in 1800. This is the only comprehensive and reliable account of the textile industry and its production organization not only of Bengal but the whole of India for that matter to be found for the early modern era. Taylor made it clear that the main source of information was a treatise called Tarikh-i Nasratjungi written by Nawab Nasrat Jung who was the naib-nazim of Dhaka between 1788 and 1822. Besides this, as he pointed out, he used the information he got from two dalals, Muktaram and Hari Singh, who served the English East India Company. They both supplied the Company with muslins from the forties or fifties to the seventies of the eighteenth century. Though both of them were very old then, as Taylor noted, they still had a sharp memory. As such the report seems to be quite dependable. According to John Taylor, two crops of cotton were raised in a year, one in April-May, the other in September-October. The one raised in April-May was of a higher quality. Generally cotton is grown in low land for two or three years successively and in the fourth year the land either remains fallow or some other crop is raised there, so that the land regains its fertility. About 4¼ seers of seeds were required to sow a land measuring one bigha and in a good season the yield per bigha was around 2 maunds of cotton. Of this cotton, only about a third which ‘adheres most to the seed, is capable of being spun into finest thread’ and another part fit for making thread of inferior degree

56

SPINNING YARNS

of fineness, and third for coarse thread only’. It is interesting to note that James Taylor, the Commercial Resident of Dhaka in the mideighteenth century noted that the best growers of cotton belonged to Barue [Barui] caste or cultivators of betel leaf.14 The next stage in the manufacture of muslin was spinning, for which skilled and proficient spinners were essential. We have discussed in detail the process of spinning and the persons engaged in the job. Here only the basics of the system are given for a better understanding of the system in the backdrop of the muslin industry in Dhaka. Spinning was a small-scale part-time cottage industry of all classes of women in Bengal, unlike weaving, which was a caste-based hereditary occupation in Bengal. Even women of high castes like Brahmins, Vaidyas, etc. spun yarn as did the women of weaving castes like Jugis, Tantis, Juluhas, etc. Thread could be produced both from the spindle and the wheel, the fines being made by spindle. Fineness and quality of yarn depended on the skill, attention and age of the spinners. To make superfine thread, quickness of sight as well as dexterity of the fingers was necessary. The thread used for fine muslin had to be spun with a hand spindle that required a peculiar expertness and flexibility of the finger. It was turned with the thumb and forefinger, the lower end resting in a bit of shell. The finest thread, suitable for the best Dhaka muslins, could be spun for only three hours only in a day, early morning and early evening. Usually girls and women between the age of 15 and 30 were employed in the work. Even a good spinner, working 3 hours a day, earned about 12 to 14 annas per month.15 Though thread was spun in many places in Dhaka, the greatest quantity and with a few exceptions, the best in Dhaka district was produced in Junglebari and Bazitpur. The thread of these aurungs possessed a peculiar softness because of ‘the superior skill with which the thread was spun’. Around 1800 there were only thirty spinners of this category in Dhaka.16 Many foreign travellers and observers have highly praised the spinners of Dhaka for the exquisite beauty and fineness of the yarn they produced. They wondered how these spinners, without any proper machine but only with the traditional spindle, could produce such fine thread which the Europeans could not dream of producing with the help of machines. They had great doubt whether such

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

57

exceptionally fine thread was available anywhere in the world. An English historian, writing on textile manufacture of Great Britain, observed that the muslins were ‘so exquisitely delicate’ that some of them ‘might be thought the work of fairies, or of insects, rather than that of men’.17 Obviously it shows the appreciation of the fine work of the spinners of Dhaka but for whose contribution the muslins would not have been so exquisitely beautiful. The weavers of Dhaka generally judged the fineness of the yarn by sight alone. The only mode of ascertaining the quality of fine yarn was to weigh the skeins and then measure them on sticks placed in the ground – an operation which required delicate manipulation, and which few, except the weavers or spinners themselves, could do. Yarn was measured by the hath (cubit), the length of which was about 19¾ inches (as stated by John Taylor) and was weighed by ruttee which is equal to 2 grains. Generally the length of the yarn used for making the finest muslin was 150 haths and weighted 1 ratti.18 The standard quality of the yarn used in the manufacture of the muslins formerly sent to the imperial court of Delhi is said to have been, as James Taylor noted, 150 haths in length to one ratti in weight. But what was generally used for the market varied from 140 to 160 haths to the above weight. However, the finest yarn used in the Dhaka looms did not exceed 140 haths in length to one ratti in weight. James Taylor stated that in 1846 a skein was measured in his presence in Dhaka and it was upwards of 250 miles to the pound of cotton. Perhaps there was no wonder in this. For, a skein from Dhaka, which was 250 miles in length and weighed one pound, was displayed in an exhibition in London in 1851.19 The yarn was divided into two portions – a sufficient quantity the finest for the woof (bana) and the rest for the warp (tana). Different categories of muslins were produced in Dhaka, of which at least eighteen were of very good quality. The weavers in Dhaka manufactured these in different aurungs. Thus even with localization and division of labour, it took long to produce very fine muslin. During James Taylor’s time, around the mid-eighteenth century, it required about five months to make a piece of small muslin, 10 × 1 yd (generally a piece of normal size muslin was about 20 × 2 yd). But it should not surprise us if we consider the time needed to spin the

58

SPINNING YARNS

amount of thread for weaving a piece of muslin. As we have noted earlier, a spinner could spin only half a tola of thread in a day. As such, it took about two years to make the thread required ready for weaving a muslin. Moreover, it required the weaver and his two helpers about six months to weave such a muslin. Consequently the price of the muslin was bound to be very high. But probably the spinners who were engaged in making thread for very fine muslins worked whole time. There was no dearth of such women in Dhaka. Still it appears the muslin James Taylor ordered took five months’ time is an understatement. Considering all the aspects it seems that the time taken for the work would have generally been about six months.20 Thus there can be little doubt that such muslins would be quite expensive. This is borne out by James Taylor who noted that the muslins manufactured for Emperor Aurangzeb cost Rs. 250 and it is said that in the time of Muhammed Reza Khan, the naib-nazim of Dhaka in 1776, some muslins were woven at Rs. 450 per piece.21 He went on further to state that during Mughal emperor Jahangir’s reign, a piece of ab-i-rawan (running-water, one of the finest and most expensive muslins, measuring 10 × 2 co. (5 × 1 yd), manufactured exclusively for the imperial seraglio and weighing only 5 tolas did cost Rs. 400.22 Again we are told that a jamdani, the chef d’oeuvre (i.e. the masterpiece) of the Dhaka weavers, cost Rs. 250 during Aurangzeb’s reign. In 1776 the cost of a piece of the best quality Dhaka jamdani was Rs. 450. A piece of muslin displayed in the London exhibition on 1851 weighed only 8 tolas which only indicates how fine and delicate was the yarn with which the cloth was woven.23 Perhaps this is why the French traveller Tavernier could not but observe that the muslins were made so thin and light as ‘scarcely to be felt in the hand; for they will spin the thread so fine that the eye can hardly discern it, or at least, it seems, to be but a cobweb’.24 The muslins sent to the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was of this quality and, as Robert Orme noted, they cost ten times the price of any ‘linens [muslins] permitted to be made for Europeans or anyone else in the kingdom’.25 But it is strange that none of the contemporary writers in the Mughal period gave any indication whatsoever of how fine and delicate was the muslin made in Dhaka. In 1772 William Bolts observed that

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

59

according to the weavers, the musbool khas made for the Mughal emperors was so fine that it was beyond imagination.26 As an example, it can be cited, which we have already mentioned earlier, that the ab-i-rawan made for Aurangzeb weighing only 5 tolas cost Rs. 400.27 But John Taylor wrote in 1800 that he did not see any muslin in Dhaka which was less than 22 tolas and cost more than Rs. 200.28 In this context it has to be remembered that neither William Bolts nor John Taylor witnessed the prime time of the muslin production in Bengal. At the same time it is to be noted that though there might have been some exaggeration in the opinion of the Dhaka weavers as quoted by Bolts, there can hardly be any doubt that the muslins produced in the royal karkhana in Dhaka were very fine and exquisite, and costly too. The procurement system of muslins was similar, except in details, to procurement of other varieties of textiles, which we shall analyse in a later chapter. As there was a great demand for muslins and these were quite expensive, all the traders, whether Asians or Europeans, had to be very careful and make contracts with the dadni merchants, dalals, paikars, etc., at early as possibly in the season. Streynsham Master, the English Company’s factor in Malda, has given a detailed account of the system of muslin procurement in the seventies of the seventeenth century.29 According to him: 1. The best time for making contracts was by offering d adni (advance) to the dadni merchants, dalals, etc., is January. 2. The paikars, taking advance from the dadni merchants, dalals, etc., move around different aurungs distributing money to the weavers for supplying the cloth within a stipulated time-frame. The whole thing depended on mutual trust – Companies on the dadni merchants/dalals, the dalals on the paikars and the latter on the weavers. And there was no need for any security for any breach of trust. 3. The dalals/dadni merchants generally supplied the contracted quantity within six months of taking the advance. 4. At the time of contract the price was fixed on the basis of the quantity to be supplied, the number of yarn in the cloth and its size, etc.

60

SPINNING YARNS

5. After the dalals/dadni merchants supplied all the cloth to the factory, these were sorted and then the payment was made after deducting the advance already made. But while sorting the cloth and fixing the price, there was often acrimony between the Company servants and the merchants as the former tried to pay lesser price than what was agreed upon earlier, on various pretexts. Again, if the cloth supplied did not conform to the sample given earlier by the Company, then these were returned. If the rancour over prices, etc., did not stop, then an established and reputed merchant was requested to mediate. In Calcutta and other places, as we shall explain in Chapter 7, the amount of dani given to the merchant-middlemen was generally between 50 and 80 per cent. But in Dhaka they were given an advance at the rate of 14 annas to a rupee which is obviously more than the rate of advance in other parts of Bengal. Though we do not know at what rate the dadni merchants, dalals, paikars, etc. received brokerage, commission, etc., from the Companies and others merchants in Calcutta and other places, John Taylor gives us some information about this. The said rates were as follows:30 Dalali (brokerage) Paiakri (retail) Dasturi (incentive)

3.2 per cent 3.2 per cent 1.60 per cent

Total

8.00 per cent

Besides, they also collected commissions, etc., from the weavers at the following rate:31 The expenses at the aurungs Batta Mujim and Rifukar Clerks Parvani (Offerings) Gifts/donations

3.2 per cent 1.60 per cent 1.60 per cent 0.50 per cent 0.30 per cent 0.10 per cent

Total

7.30 per cent

Now let us have a look at the people who comprised the dalals, paikars, etc., in Dhaka. There is some indication in the Dhaka Factory

61

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

Records. The merchant-middlemen, etc., who took advances from the Company for supplying muslins in 1737 were the following: Name

Total Price (in Rs.)

Advance (in Rs.)

21,007.25 8,725.00 8,010.00 13,257.25 1,915.00 1,328.00 10,057.25 1,311.00

18,906.50 7,827.50 7,186.75 11,881.50 1,738.50 1,202.75 9,026.50 1,185.00

Ramnarayan Dalal Nitu Dalal Sonamoyee Dalal Muktagolab Paikar Hafizulla Paikar Bishnudas Samu Paikar Jaykrishna Paikar Kamal Noon Dezam(?)

However, the Company gave advances to several other merchantmiddlemen later in that year. In the 1740s the number of merchants with whom the Company contracted increased considerably. In 1744 it gave advances to the following dalals/paikars:32 Name Ramanarayan Dalal Shyamsundar Dalal Sonamoyee Dalal Brij Dalal Nehal Dalal Deendayal Anand Behari Dalal Gopee Dalal Bishnudas Paikar Bishnudas Deendayal Bishnudas Behari Jituram Dalal Hargovind Dalal Jagannath Paikar Gopee Narahari Kamul Nandaram Paikar Jaykrishna Sonamoni Kamul Nandaram Paikar Hafizur Paikar Muktagolab Paikar Muktaram Royjee Abhoyram Dalal

Amount of Advance (in Rs.) 17,952.50 3, 378.75 6,058.75 8,538.25 3,188.75 1,793.00 6,698.75 3,075.00 8,813.75 5,157.50 5,152.50 3,866.25 2,343.00 1,215.00 3,876.25 2,085.00 6,822.50 1,150.00 1,586.25 8,063.00 4,464.25 10,517.00

62

SPINNING YARNS

However, in 1757 the number of dalal/paikar decreased to a great extent and as a result the amount of advance had gone up considerably. In that year the merchant-middlemen with whom the Company entered into contract for supplying muslin were the following:33 Name

Amount of Advance (in Rs.)

Dhanram Dalal Nitu Nehal Dalal Abhoyram Dalal Narahari Paikar Nehal Balinath Buddun Bandhu(?) Laksminarayan Bandhu(?) Bandhu Harisingh Paikar

42,500.00 21,499.50 10.000.00 23,925.00 10,999.00 6,000.00 5,000.00 48,001.00

It is not possible from the list of dalals/paikars mentioned above to identify who were Bengalis and, who were non-Bengalis, but it is apparent that they comprised Bengalis, non-Bengalis, Hindus, Muslims, etc. As the names of most of the persons end with Dalal/ Paikar, it is not possible to identify their origin. But in the case of the dadni merchants of Calcutta, as we shall see later, most of the names are given with their surnames from which it is possible to deduce their identity – whether they were Bengalis or not, whether they were Brahmins, Vaidyas, Kayasthas or Shudras, etc. As mentioned earlier, there were many categories of muslins in Dhaka. John Taylor has given a detailed account of the muslins sent by Mughal subadar Murshid Quli Khan to the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the early eighteenth century.34

malboos khas From Dhaka aurung: 100 Jamdani, each Rs. 250 Washing and repairing

Rs. 250 × 100

50 silk chikans, each Rs. 200 Washing and repairing

Rs. 200 × 50

Total

Total

(Rs.) 25,000.00 1,000.00 26,000.00 10,000.00 280.00 10,280.00

63

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

From Sonargaon aurung: 100 white muslin, each Rs. 200 Washing and repairing

Total

20,000.00 2,000.00 22,000.00 1,600.00 150.00 1,750.00

Total

20,000.00 1,050.25 21,050.25

Total

10,000,00 1,000.00 11,000.00

Total 20 sarband, each Rs. 80 Washing and repairing From Bazitpur aurung: 100 white muslin, each Rs. 200 Washing and repairing From the Junglebary aurung: 100 white muslin each Rs. 100 Washing and repairing

Grand Total 99,081.00

Be that as it may, in 1790, John Taylor once tried to get three pieces of very fine and soft muslins like mulboos khas, jungle khas and sarkar-i-ali woven and engaged several efficient weavers of Junglebari for the job. To encourage them to do the work nicely and speedily, he asked them to weave three half-size pieces (10 yd) of each variety and advanced them Rs. 600 per piece at the rate of Rs. 200 per piece. The weavers assured him that they would not deceive Taylor regarding the fineness of the yarn, its counts or in any weaving matter. They also promised that they would produce the muslins at least of the standard of the mulboos khas of the Mughal times. When the weavers finished the work it was found that the muslin were not as fine and good as the ones of the Mughal times, not even equal to the one that Taylor got woven by the weavers of Sonargaon.35 The fact of the matter was that in the royal karkhanas of the mulboos khas or sarkar­ i-ali, it was not possible to use threads below the samples given or to deceive in any other way. As a result the quality of the material produced was the best. MULBOOS KHAS

The royal karkhanas where the best quality muslins for the use of the royalty, the nobility and provincial aristocrats were produced was known as mulboos khas. John Taylor has given a graphic description

64

SPINNING YARNS

of the manufactures of mulboos khas in Dhaka.36 During the Mughal period, mulboos khas ‘coties’ (kuthis – factories) were established in different well-known aurungs for production of best quality muslins like mulboos khas, sarkar-i-ali, etc. But it was a limited production as muslins like mulboos khas was manufactured mainly for the imperial household and sarkar-i-ali for provincial hierarchies. But there was actually not much of a demand for these in the market since the price was very high. As such even the European Companies were not interested in exporting these as there were not any buyers for them. But the Mughal subadars of Bengal always made it a point to send the best quality and most expensive muslins from Dhaka to Delhi as nazrana (present).37 Even in the very early stage of Mughal occupation of Bengal, the subadar Ibrahim Khan, sent expensive muslins to Emperor Jahangir.38 It is said that his wife Empress Nur Jahan, was a great admirer of Dhaka muslins.39 The detailed description of the working of the royal karkhanas by John Taylor brings out several interesting elements of the production organization of the textile industry in eighteenth-century Bengal, which is equally applicable to the whole of India as well. He noted that under the Mughal government mulboos khas cooties (kuthis factories or sheds built for making ‘royal clothing’) were established in Dhaka, Sonargaon and Junglebari. These kuthis were supervised by the officials called darogas whose duty was to inspect the manufacture of all the cloth made for royal use. Sheds were used in the aurungs. The best weavers were selected, registered and compelled to attend regularly at the appointed hour. On behalf of the daroga, officials called ‘mokeems’ (mukims) inspected the thread which the weavers brought for the looms and ‘none was permitted to be used until it has been previously compared with’ established samples. Moreover peons were set on the weavers to make them attend and punished if they attempted to abscond. Taylor commented that none of the weavers worked willingly ‘on account of the inadequate profit which the cloths yielded them’. But at the same time he added that the constant practice of weaving such cloth ‘must have highly advanced the skill of the weavers’.40 Several important features of the organization of the textile industry in the eighteenth industry emerge from the above report. First, it is

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

65

of significance that even in the royal karkhanas, the weavers were allowed to bring their own yarn. If that were so, it was beyond doubt that in case of private and commercial manufacture, the weavers brought their own thread. So it means that even in the dadni or advance system, which possibly became more extensive in the eighteenth century, it implies that there was certainly no advance in yarn or raw material; only an advance in cash was made to the weavers. Second, the implication of the statement that the weavers had ‘inadequate profit’ in the royal karkhanas was that the weavers were not wage workers even there. Again, it follows from Taylor’s account that in all probability the cloth produced by the weavers in the royal karkhanas was bought by the daroga on behalf of the royalty or nobility. In the process, however, the weaver did not get proper price for his produce, quite a bit of which was appropriated by the daroga, mukim and other officials. The fact of the matter is confirmed by Taylor who stated that during Nawab Sirajudaullah’s time, while the jamdanis were charged Rs. 250 from the royal authorities, the weavers actually received Rs. 150 only, the rest being pocketed by the officials. Another important feature of the textile industry that emerges from Taylor’s report is that even in the case of jamdanis, made for the royal household in the sadar mulboos khas cootie at Dhaka, advances to the weavers were paid in cash.41 This only confirms the fact that dadni was very much a traditional system and nothing new which could be associated with the increase in the European demand in the second half of the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century. The muslins comprised plain, striped, chequered, figured and coloured varieties, and were distinguished by names which either denoted fineness or transparency of texture or referred to the origin of manufacture, their patterns or uses to which they were applied as articles of dress. The common dimension of a piece of Dhaka muslin was 20 yd. in length by one in breadth. The value of a piece of muslin was estimated by its length and the number of threads in the warp, compared with its weight. The greater the length and number of threads and less the weight of the piece, the higher was its price. The principal varieties were: Mulboos khas: signifying muslin made literally for the use of the king

66

SPINNING YARNS

and his household, had 1800 to 1900 hundred threads in the warp and was in general manufactured in half pieces, each measuring ten yards in length and one yard in breadth. Needless to say, these were supposed to be the finest and best muslins. Towards the end of the eighteenth century when manufacture for the royalty and the nobility had stopped, another variety of muslin, inferior to mulboos khas, were produced, named malmal khas. Ab-i-rawan: it was a fabric of very thin texture, the transparency of which was fancifully compared to that of limpid running water. The name was derived from Persian words ab (water) and rawan (to flow). Its size was 20 × 1 yd and weighted 9 to 11½ oz., the number of threads in the warp 700 to 1,400. Jhuna: The name derived from jhin (fine/thin) was a net-like muslin of 20 × 1 yd. The fabric was used largely by dancers and singers, and by the womenfolk of the wealthy household, for whose use it was specially woven. We are told that the merchants were not permitted to export it for all of it was sent to the ‘seraglio of the Great Mogul and and to the principal lords of the court’. Sarkar-i-Ali (Ala): It was a muslin of close but delicate texture which was manufactured for the use of the nawabs of the province. It was included among the articles for the vice-regal court, the cost of which was defrayed from the revenues of the jagir ‘sarkar ali’ and hence its name. Its dimension was 10 × 1 yd, number of thread in the warp 1,900 and weight 4 to 4½ oz. Khasa: The name was probably derived from the Persian word khash or khasu meaning fine or elegant. It was a muslin of a fine close texture. Abul Fazl mentions it towards the end of the sixteenth century in the Ain-i-Akbari under the name cosse as a manufacture for which Soanrhaon was then celebrated. The finest variety of it was called jungle khasa. Its dimension was 20 × 1 or 1½ yd, number of thread in the warp 1,400 to 2,800, weight of a piece with latter count 21 oz. Shabnam: It was a thin pellucid muslin, the name meaning ‘evening dew’ figuratively. It is said that when this muslin was spread on the ground, it could hardly be distinguished from the dew on the grass.

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

67

Its dimension was 20 × 1 yd, number of threads in the warp 700 to 1,300 and weight 10 to 13 oz. Nayansook: Probably this was the fabric named as tansook in the Ain­ i-Akbari by Abul Fazl which was called nayansook in Bengal. It was generally used as a scarf, its price ranging from Rs. 4 to 80, the dimension being 20 × 1½ yd, and the thread in warp from 2,200 to 2,700. Tanzeb: In Persian the word meant tun, the body and zeb, ornament, meaning thereby the ornament which adds beauty to the body. This white and fine muslin was used for making garments/dresses. It measured 20 × 1 yd, number of threads in the warp from 800 to 1,900, weight 10 to 18 oz. Terendam: it was a kind of ‘cloth for the body’ and used to make dresses. Its size was 20 × 1 yd, weight 15 to 27 oz., number of threads in the warp 1,000 to 2,700. As such it was thicker than other varieties of muslins. Buddun Khas [Badan Khas?]: It was a fine muslin, the waft of which was not so close as that of the nayansook. The Persian word buddun means ‘body’ and hence it seems that it was used for making clothes. Its dimension was 10 to 24 × 1½ yd, the number of threads in the warp 2,200 and weight about 12 oz. Surbund: The name is derived from sur [the head] and bandhna [to bind] meaning a muslin worn as a turban. Its dimension was 20 to 24 × ½ to 2 yd, number of threads in the warp 2,100 and weight about 12 oz. Surbatee: [signifying twisted or coiled round the head] – a muslin worn as a turban after the said fashion. Its size, number of threads, weight, etc., were the same as those of surbund. Doorea: It was a striped muslin and made generally of bhoga or sironj cotton and as such the texture was a little thick. It was used mainly for making clothes of children. Its dimension was 10 to 20 × 1 to 1½ yd, number of threads in the warp 1,500 to 2,100 and weight a little more than other types of muslins. Charkanu (Charkona): A chequered muslin as its name implies. Its

68

SPINNING YARNS

dimension, number of threads and weight were the same as those of doreas. Both doreas and charkonas were of different patterns as regards the size or breadth of the stripes, their closeness to each other, and the size of the squares. Jamdani: The name comes from Persian applied to cloth embroidered in the loom. During the Mughal period, the major part of the pro­ ductions of royal karkhanas in Dhaka comprised jamdanis. These were actually the most expensive productions of the Dhaka looms because of the complicated designs wrought upon them. Besides the royalty and the nobility, there was a great demand for jamdanis among the rich merchants, zamindars and other aristocrats. It is said that the jamdanis manufactured for Emperor Aurangzeb cost Rs. 350 and in the time of Muhammed Reza Khan, the naib-nazim of Bengal in 1776, some were woven for Rs. 450 per piece. NOTES 1. William Bolts, Considerations, p. 206. 2. R.C. Temple (ed.), The Diaries of Streynsham Master, vol. II, p.12; also J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, 1925, p. 402. 3. Ibid., pp. 400-1. 4. Sebastian Manrique, The Travels of…, vol. 1, pp. 56-7. 5. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, quoted in Abdur Rahim, Social and Cultural History of Bengal, vol. II, p. 431. 6. Quoted in A.H. Dani, Dacca, p. 34. 7. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 7. 8. Ibid., pp. 7-8; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 7-8; Muntasir Mamun, Dhakar Muslin, p. 12; Modern Review, 1925. 9. James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 8. 10. Ibid., p. 8; Muntasir Mamun, Dhakar Muslin, pp. 12-13. 11. Ibid. 12. J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, 1925, p. 402; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 17-18; Muntasir Mamun, Dhakar Muslin, pp. 12-13. 13. Home Misc. 456F, ff.; Syed Murtaza Ali, ‘Dacca Muslin’, in JASP, 1968, p. 206. 14. James Taylor, Cotton Manufactures, p. 13. 15. Calculated from John Taylor’s report, Home Misc. 456F, ff. 131-3. 16. Ibid., ff. 129-31. 17. Baynes, History of Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, p. 56.

T H E D H A K A M U S L I N I N D U S T RY

69

18. Taylor, Cotton Manufatures, pp. 18-20. 19. J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, pp. 203-4; James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, pp. 20; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 26. 20. J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, p. 405. 21. James Taylor, Cotton Manufactures, p. 48. 22. William Bolts, Considerations, p. 206; James Taylor, Cotton Manufactures, p. 54. 23. J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, p. 405; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 42-3; Muntasir Mamun, Dhakar Muuslin, pp. 20-2, 38. 24. Quoted in James Taylor, Cotton Manufacture, p. 53. 25. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, vol. IV, p. 412. 26. William Bolts, Considerations, p. 206; J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, p. 407. 27. Home Misc. 456F. 28. Ibid. 29. Streynsham Master, The Diaries of Steynsham Master, vol. II, pp. 14-15. 30. Home Misc. 456F. 31. Ibid. 32. Dacca Factory Records, vol. II, 13 February 1737; Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 73. 33. Dacca Factory Records, vol. II, 6 December 1757 quoted in Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 75. 34. John Taylor’s Report, Home Misc. 456F. 35. Taylor’s Report, Home, Misc. 456F. 36. John Taylor’s Report, Home Misc. 456F. 37. Ibid. 38. James Taylor, Topography and Statistics of Dacca, p. 164. 39. John Taylor’s Report, Home Misc. 456F. 40. John Taylor’s Report, Home Misc. 456F, ff. 163-9. 41. Ibid., ff. 171-3.

CHAPTER 6

Silk Textiles

engal was not only the manufacturer of muslins, fine and

B

coarse textiles but also, as we have noted earlier, silk and silk and cotton-mixed cloth in the early modern era. Both silk and mixed fabrics were produced mainly in the Kasimbazar-Murshidabad region as it was the area where the best silk was produced. The silk and mixed textiles were not only exported to different parts of Asia but also to Europe. That is why a contemporary observer wrote: ‘The neighbourhood of Murshidabad is the chief seat of manufacture of wove silk: taffeta, both plain and flowered, and many other sorts of inland commerce and for exportation, are made there abundantly, than at any other places where silk is wove.’ It was in the seventeenth and eighteenth century that Murshidabad with its neighbourhood became the major centre of silk production in Bengal. The chief of the English East India Company in Malda, Streynsham Master, noted in 1676 that mulberry trees, the leaves of which were the essential food of the silkworms, were cultivated in ‘all the country or great part thereof about Kasimbazar’.1 The extensive cultivation of mulberry trees was indeed a typical feature of the rural scene in Murshidabad and naturally provided employment to many people. The great importance of silk production in the economic life of Murshidabad is reflected in a common saying prevalent for long in the area that ‘the mulberry is a greater source of wealth and happiness than one’s son’.2 The silk industry can be divided into two crafts – the production

SILK TEXTILES

71

of raw silk and its manufacture. The production of sericulture proper was an agricultural-cum-cottage-industry. The peasant-farmers grew mulberry trees along with other agricultural crops and reared silkworms on the mulberry leaves at their homes. The rearing of the cocoons was a domestic industry inasmuch as while the male members of the family worked for mulberry cultivation in the fields, the women were engaged in rearing the silkworms indoor. J. Geoghegan, writing on the silk industry in the early nineteenth century, stated on the basis of other authorities, that special houses were needed for rearing of silkworms.3 A suitable room for such a purpose should be 24 ft long, 15 ft wide and 9 ft high with a raised platform of 3 ft and a thick earthen wall, with two windows at the top of the wall and a roof of thick compact thatch. A room of this specification could accommodate 200 kahans4 or 2,56,000 worms spread out on dalas or shelves of 5½ × 4½ ft, plastered with cowdung5 and placed upon machas or platforms. These platforms were supported by bamboo pillars resting on small earthen saucers filled with water to obstruct the passage of insects. Among other things, each cultivator needed several spinning mats, knives, baskets (to carry mulberry leaves), a few gunny bags on which to spread the cocoons in the sun, and a number of kalsis or earthen pitchers to store water for the saucers. And for the whole establishment it would have cost about Rs. 50 to 60 in the early nineteenth century.6 Probably the cost would have been less in the mid-eighteenth century. Though Speed’s description pertains to the early nineteenth century, it can well be projected back to the eighteenth century since the main features of the silk industry do not seem to have changed much in the intervening period. Speed noted that in the first and the second stages of rearing, the silkworms were fed twice a day and every six or eight hours in the last two stages. As soon as the worms were ready to spin, ‘they turn from a greenish-cream to a mellow light orange colour . . . with a transparent streak down the back, passing as, is observed, the emission from tail to head, which forms the silk.’7 They were then put on the mat, placed in the open air facing the sun when it was not too scorching and brought under cover at night. The worms continued spinning for 56 hours. Four or five days later the cocoons

72

SPINNING YARNS

were ready for reeling except, in the rainy season when they took a longer time to dry. The peasant-cultivators either sold the cocoons immediately to silk paikars or other merchants, or the cocoons were steamed and reeled into silk thread in the peasant’s house.8 The spinners wound off the cocoons in the first instance into a thread called ‘putney’ or ‘pattany’ which was an assortment of fine and coarse threads.9 Orme perhaps did not exaggerate when he wrote about the high skill of the silk spinners in the 1750s:10 The women wind off raw silk from the pod of the worm. A single pod of the raw silk is divided into twenty different degrees of fineness, and so exquisite is the feeling of these women, that whilst the thread is running through their fingers so swiftly that their eyes can be of no assistance, they will break it off exactly as the assortments change, at once from the first to the twentieth, from nineteenth to the second.

Buchanan, writing around 1807, gave an elaborate description of the whole process from the rearing of the cocoons to the spinning of silk thread wherein he emphasized the role of the women who handled the whole thing. Indeed, what a great importance the womenfolk of Bengal attached to the spinning wheel would be apparent from the following saying: Charka amar swami put,

Charka amar nati

Charkar doulate amar duare bandha hati.

The spindle wheel is as dear to me as my husband, son or grandson; It is due to the spinning wheel that I have an elephant chained to my door.

The merchants who supplied the silk piece-goods and mixed piecegoods were specialized in dealing with these commodities only and generally they didn’t trade in any other commodity. It seemed to be the general practice in Mushidabad-Kasimbazar that as the trade in silk piece-goods was a specialized business, other merchants would not deal with that commodity. This is clear from the Company records. To cite an illustration, let us see what happened in the early 1740s. In 1742 when the Company tried to get securities against the advance given to the merchants dealing with silk piece-goods, they refused to do so on the ground that ‘some of them did business for Guzzeraters, Multaners, Armenians and other merchants, and for greater amounts

SILK TEXTILES

73

than with us and yet no such thing was ever demanded of them’.11 In 1744 some of the prominent merchants dealing in silk piece-goods absolutely refused to give any security and who were even ready to forgo the Company’s contract for silk and mixed piece-goods rather than giving security. The Calcutta Council noted in the Consult. of 23 April 1744:12 . . . it is impossible to get the quantity of silk piece-goods ordered, without employing many other merchants residing in Murshidabad and Sidabad and other places some of whom being wealthy in good credit will not be persuaded to give any security, particularly Ram Singh, Gosseram and Ramnaut Echeanut, without whose assistance they [Kasimbazar Council] fear they shall fall very short in the article of Taffaties which the above-mentioned chiefly deal in and provide the very best and which the other merchants do not care to meddle with as they are liable to occasion bad debts among the weavers they absolutely refused to give [security] as they being substantial people, and they apprehend no risqué of any money entrusted with them, and in case they throw them out of Dadney, the Dutch and the French will gladly employ them.

Needless to say that the Calcutta Council gave its consent to Kasimbazar Council to contract with these merchants despite their refusal to render any security for the dadni advanced. Of the silk piece-goods, the highest demand was for taffetas, and these were mostly produced in the Murshidabad-Kasimbazar area. Taffetas comprised a major portion of the silk piece-goods exported by the European Companies. The Dutch exported taffetas also to South-East Asia and Japan. However, it is to be noted that even in the export of silk piece-goods, the Asians had a decisive lead over the Europeans in the mid-eighteenth century which will be apparent from the comparative study of the volume (piece-wise) of Asian and European exports of this category of textiles for 1750/1 to 1754/5, the five years for which an analysis is possible (Table 6.1). Though Table 6.1 does not take into account the French export for lack of any precise data on that, it can be well assumed that the French share could not have been more than half of the Dutch and English exports’13 i.e. between 12,000 and 15,000 pieces at the uppermost level. Thus the average annual European export of silk textiles would have been around 67,000 to 70,000 pieces (the total

74

SPINNING YARNS

TABLE 6.1: QUINQUENNIAL TOTAL & AVERAGE OF SILK TEXTILE EXPORTS

ASIAN AND EUROPEAN COMPANIES 1750/1 TO 1754/5

Year

Asian Companies

European Companies

(Pieces)

Dutch (pcs)

English (pcs)

European Companies (Total)

1750/1 1551/2 1752/3 1753/4 1754/5

124,625 92, 475 89,978 74,978 75,062

12,890 39,628 27,777 29,029 40,885

12,760 20,041 32,615 24,663 34,160

25,650 59,669 60,392 53692 75,043

Total

457,168

150,207

124,239

274,446

91,434

30,041

24,848

54,889

Average

Source: Asian Exports, BPC, vol. 44, Consult 19 June 1769; Dutch export collected and computed from export invoices of the VOC records; English exports computed from data provided by K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World.

of the Dutch and English being 54,000 pieces according to Table 6.1) while the export by Asian merchants was more than 91,000 pieces. So it can be asserted that as regards the export of silk textiles from Kasimbazar-Murshidabad region, the Asians were ahead of the European Companies. It is to be noted in this connection that silk textile was perhaps not a staple variety in the Asian export from Bengal. It was cotton piece-goods – ordinary, medium and fine – TABLE 6.2: PRODUCTION COST OF TAFFETAS IN KASIMBAZAR, 1756

Taffetas

Pucca Green

Pale Green

Blue

Cost of Silk Winding Cost Twisting Cost Potash & Straw Agent Blue & others Others Dyes Tying Broken Threads Weaving

6.10 0.4.6 0.4.0 0.2.0 0.10.6 3.12.6 1.1.0 1.4.0

6.10 0.4.6 0.4.0 0.2.0 0.10.6 3.11.0 1.1.0 1.4.0

6.10 0.4.6 0.4.0 0.2.0 0.10.6 – 1.1.0 1.4.0

Total Cost

13.0.6

9.15.0

9.4.0

9.6

12.5

13.5

Weavers’ profit in % of total cost

SILK TEXTILES

75

which comprised the bulk of Asian exports to the Middle East and Central Asia. Though these spinners and other artisans were extremely skilled in the manufacture of silk and mixed textiles, we do not know much about their socio-economic condition. Yet as there was quite a big demand for the silk textiles in the market, and again as there was no dearth of raw material, it can be conjectured safely that they were not badly off. The silk weavers generally produced taffetas of three colours – deep green, light green and blue. Fortunately we found in the sources an estimate of the production cost under different heads and the profit made by the weavers in the manufactures of taffetas.14 NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

Master’s Diaries, vol. 2, p. 28. Quoted in H.R. Ghosal, Economic Transition, p. 57, fn. 126. J. Geoghegan, Silk in India, pp. 16-18. 1,280 worms make one kahan or 16 pans. Cowdung makes the dalas durable and its odour is congenial to the worms. D.W.H. Speed, ‘Notes on the Culture of Silk in Bengal in the East Indies’, in Transactions of the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of India, vol. III, 1837, pp. 14-15. Ibid., pp. 22-3. Geoghegan, Silk in India, pp. 6-7, 15-16. Ibid., pp. 15-16. Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 412. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 26 February 1742. Ibid., f. 6, 23 April 1744; Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 19 April 1744. Marshall also estimated from Martineau that the French Company’s exports may have been half of those of the Dutch and English, P. J. Marshall, Bengal, p. 66. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 12, 15 January 1756; BPC, vol. 28, f. 386, 22 January 1756.

CHAPTER 7

Procurement of

Textiles for Export

ndian textiles, especially Bengal textiles, were the mainstay

I

for clothing in the various parts of the world in the early modern era. Though textiles from India was exported to different countries for centuries even before the advent of the modern era, it was from around the seventeenth century that Bengal textiles met most of the demand for clothing by the population of several countries in Asia, Europe and Africa. It is because of this that the title of a recent publication was given as How India Clothed the World?.1 It was actually the French traveller, Pyrard de Laval, who first said India, and Bengal especially, supplied most of the material for clothing to numerous countries. It has been mentioned earlier that even long before the advent of the Europeans, Bengal textiles were exported to different parts of India and Asia, and even to Africa. As a matter of fact, even before Vasco da Gama discovered in 1498, the direct sea-route from Europe to Asia, Bengal textiles were exported overland through central Asia and the Middle East to Alexandria from where European traders took them to Venice where merchants from different parts of Europe assembled for buying the textiles and other Indian/Asian commodities. After the arrival of the European Companies, the textiles were sent directly to Europe and England via sea route. However, the Asian merchants carried on with the overland trade in textiles and other commodities. But everyone – whether Asian or European – had to collect the textiles from different aurungs and then keep them at one

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

77

place so that they could be exported either through sea route or by overland caravans. Here cropped up the main difficulty. As the textile industry in Bengal was very diffused and scattered all over the countryside, it was not easy to collect the textiles by the Company servants who had little knowledge of the local language or the local markets. So they had to depend on the brokers, dadni merchants, merchant-middlemen, etc., for procurement of textiles and other export commodities. Though the Asians were in a much better position than the Europeans so far as the local language or market is concerned, most often they too had to take recourse to various means for the collection of textiles and other goods. Let us see what were the method resorted to by the Europeans and the Asians for securing their investments in the scheduled time. SYSTEM ADOPTED BY

ASIAN/INDIAN MERCHANTS

The Asian/Indian merchants, though they used to buy textiles some­ times from the open market, more often than not made contracts with the weavers/artisans for supply of cloth through their gomastas or agents who gave advances to them. As the prices in the open market was often quite high and as it was difficult to find the required quantity in the late season, it was necessary to enter into contract with the weavers as to the number of pieces required, their exact size, price and time of delivery. A certain percentage of advance, which varied from 50 to 65 per cent, and sometime even up to 80 per cent, was given at the time of the contract. The Asian/Indian merchants had certain advantages compared to the Europeans. Unlike the Europeans, the Asian/Indian merchants and their agents or gomastas could communicate with the weavers/artisans in the local language while finalizing the terms of the contract, and they were also well conversant with the market conditions. Above all, the Asian/Indian merchants did not hesitate to go to even remote villages or aurungs for contracting with the weavers for supply of export commodities, especially cloth, at a reasonable price which might not have been possible in big commercial centres and large aurungs. Again, in this context, it is to be noted that these Asians/Indians, whether the merchants or their

78

SPINNING YARNS

agents, could live a simple life with little expenses which the Europeans could not have done.2 Moreover the Asians/Indians had another advantage. Most of their agents or gomastas were their kin, or belonged to the same clan or community. They did not generally appoint outsiders as their agents. The Armenians were very particular in this respect and appointed persons who were their family members or related to them, or those who belonged to their community only.3 Among the Marwaris and the Gujaratis too it was the same practice to appoint only people belonging to their own clan or community. This is corroborated by the activities of the House of Jagat Seth in Bengal in the first half of the eighteenth century.4 As a result, the Asian/Indian merchants could buy the textiles and other export commodities at a much cheaper price than the Europeans and their overhead cost was much lower than that of the Europeans. So in the competition with the Europeans, the Asians were definitely much ahead of the Europeans. PROCUREMENT SYSTEM OF THE COMPANIES

The Court of Directors (Heeren Seventeen of the VOC) of the European Companies sent orders every year for required quantities of textiles, indicating the various types, size, colour, approximate price, etc., to the principal factory (e.g. Fort William, later named Calcutta) which reached around August/ September so that the export commodity could be shipped November/December the following year. It means that the orders were sent about a year ahead so that the goods could be collected within the intervening period. Accordingly, the Companies started to contract with the brokers/merchant­ middlemen, paikars, etc., for the textiles ordered after the Europebound ships had left around November/December so that they need not buy at the shipping season when the prices rose sharply. But as mentioned earlier, it was difficult for the Companies to buy textiles easily because of the extreme diffusion of the industry in Bengal. Unlike the Asians, the Europeans could not move around the country contracting with the primary producers/artisans and hence made use of existing organizations, though in course of time

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

79

they did introduce modifications and innovations with varying degrees of success in a variety of directions aimed at solving specific problems they encountered. An important functionary made use of by the Companies was the broker, who was designated as the ‘chief merchant’ in important factories like Calcutta or Kasimbazar, an Indian with intimate knowledge of both the local market and the intermediary merchants. His duties included collecting information about the market price of textiles and other export commodities as well as identifying merchants with reputation of honouring contractual obligations. These merchants were brought by the broker or chief merchant to the relevant Company and agreements concluded between the Company and each of the merchants willing to supply at mutually agreed terms. In the case of textiles, the agreement specified the quantity to be supplied with their colour, size, etc., the period of delivery, and the price per piece of each of the different varieties contracted for. The merchants had the goods manufactured mainly on the basis of the contract system which obliged them to give a part of the value the contract to the producers in advance. The merchants who were known as dadni merchants, therefore, insisted that the Company similarly give them an advance, which in case of Bengal was generally between 50 and 65 per cent. The intermediary merchants were an extremely heterogeneous group. In the case of the English Company, at the one end there were big merchants like the Calcutta Seths or the Katmas of Kasimabzar, and on the other end there were marginal merchants who could not have operated except on the basis of the advances received from the Company. Once the goods were delivered to the Company’s warehouses, the deviations from the samples were worked out and the price finally paid to the merchants was adjusted accordingly. The practice of employing a broker became an integral part of the Companies’ machinery for providing investments in India. The custom of engaging a broker who became an integral part of the European investment in India was reported as being common by travellers like John Fryer and J. Ovington during the last quarter of the seventeenth century.5 In Calcutta, Kasimbazar, Dhaka and other factories in Bengal, the English Company contracted for investment with the dadni merchants through the brokers/chief merchants who helped

80

SPINNING YARNS

them also in sorting and pricing the commodities brought by the former. As the Company’s investment in Calcutta was quite considerable, the office of the chief merchant/broker there was very important and influential. Needless to say, the office of the broker was equally important in Surat where one had to buy the office by offering a considerable sum but it was not the case in Calcutta.6 As noted earlier, the two families which provided most of the chief merchants of the English Company in Calcutta and Kasimbazar respectively were the Seths and Katmas respectively. Since the invest­ ments in Calcutta comprised largely silk and cotton piece-goods, none could play the role of a broker/chief merchant than the Seths who themselves belonged to the weaving caste. They, together with the Basaks of the same caste, were the most powerful families, both economically and socially, of their community in Calcutta. These two families were prominent merchants in Satgaon till the end of the sixteenth century when this premier port of Bengal declined because of the silting of the river Sarasvati. There upon the two families moved to Sutanati, which later became, Calcutta, and were engaged in the trade of yarn and textile. Though the first broker/chief merchant of the Company, Jayakrishna, was appointed on an annual salary of Rs. 1,000 per annum, later on the most of the chief merchants in Calcutta worked on a commission basis. The next broker Janardan Seth, who was described by the Calcutta Council ‘as the person best qualified for a broker’, was appointed to the post on condition that he would pay ¾ per cent brokerage on the value of total investment in Calcutta in lieu of a regular salary.7 After Janardan’s death in 1712, his brother Baranasi Sett was appointed the Company’s broker/chief merchant but was sacked soon on the charge of betraying the Company. When the experiment of the Company with two other brokers from outside the Seth family failed miserably, it reinstated Baranasi Sett as the broker in 1719.8 The Calcutta Council was now quite happy with Baranasi and wrote to the Court of Directors on 31 January 1722 that ‘none but he could have influence the [dadni] merchants and served the last and this year’s investment on credit, he being bound with each merchant for what they borrowed of the Shroffs; this shows his zeal for the Company’s Interest’.9 The Court of Directors too wrote to the Calcutta

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

81

Council appreciating the services rendered by Baranasi.10 After Baranasi’s death in 1724, the Calcutta Council appointed his brother Bishnudas Sett as the broker. But he had problems with the Company over his alleged collusion with Umichand, then a dadni merchant and was replaced by the former chief merchant Baranasi’s son, Shyamsundar Sett, as the broker in 1732. It is significant that when Bishnudas was appointed the broker, the Calcutta Council wrote that he was the ‘properest person’ to be appointed broker and that he was an eminent merchant for whom even the ‘Hughli darbar’ recommended at the time of his appointment.11 This only means that for the Company there was no other option but to seek the assistance of the Sett family in procuring its investments in Bengal. However, the Court of Directors started contemplating the abolition of the post of broker as it was apprehensive that the broker and the Company servants were inflating the prices of the export commodities to the detriment of the Company’s interests. And finally in 1741, it abolished the post of broker altogether. In this context it may be mentioned that the chief merchants as well as most of the dadni merchants were themselves merchants of repute with substantial credit, carrying on their own trade independent of the Company. Besides the Sett family, the Basaks of Calcutta, among others, were also a prominent merchant family of Calcutta. Though they worked as dadni merchants, they had their own independent businesses. As such, though they supplied export commodities to the Company, they were never subservient to the latter. A few examples will suffice to prove the point. In 1747, the Company asked the dadni merchants to provide investments without any advance payment in the face of the Maratha invasions and the whole amount would be paid after the goods were supplied. But the dadni merchants refused ‘in a body’ to do so and informed the Company that they will not sign any contract for providing the export commodities unless they received the usual advance against it. The Calcutta Council noted in utter exasperation: ‘As the Seths [Setts] and other merchants obstinately refuse to contract with us unless upon their own terms and impertinently refuse to let us employ any other merchants agreed that we look out for such as will contract.’12 Needless to say that the Council failed to get hold of other merchants

82

SPINNING YARNS

who would agree to supply the Company’s investments and ultimately contracted with the said dadni merchants on the latter’s terms. Again, a serious disagreement between the Council and the dadni merchants arose in 1751 when the merchants refused to sign the accounts as prepared by the former wherein the merchants were charged penalty for deficiency in delivery of goods. Though the Setts too refused ‘in a body’ to sign the accounts, this time the lead was taken by the Basaks. Sobharam Basak, the leading member of the Basak family, refused to sign the contract, much to the chagrin of the English Council which retaliated by dismissing him from ‘service’ and forbidding him from coming to the factory, alleging that ‘he had been greatly instrumental in working up several of the other merchants to the same refusal’.13 As Ramkrishna Sett also refused to sign the contract he too was dismissed from the Company’s dadni contract and forbidden entry to the factory. But he was soon readmitted into the Company’s service and so too was Sobharam Basak.14 However, the same thing happened in 1753 when the merchants again refused to sign the contract under the terms dictated by the Calcutta Council and it now decided to do away with the dadni contract system and introduced the gomasta system under which the gomastas (paid agents/ servants) procured the export commodities from different aurungs or manufacturing centres.15 In this context, it may be mentioned that the Company servants were trying for some time to get rid of the dadni merchants and introduce the gomasta system because it would be advantageous. As the gomastas would be paid employees of the Company, it would have been possible for them to use the gomastas to enhance their private trade interest which the dadni merchants would have refused to do.16 The brief discussion about the chief merchants and the dadni merchants of the Company was given here to understand better the difficulties faced by it in procuring the cloth for export to Europe. It was indeed an arduous job to procure the necessary amount of textiles in time for shipping. The procurement process had to be started at least six to eight months ahead of the time when the ships were scheduled to sail for Europe. There were other difficulties in pro­ curement which will be discussed later. Be that as it may, in Kasimbazar as in Calcutta, the Company had

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

83

to depend mainly on a family – the Katmas – for procuring the bulk of the textiles and raw silk. More often than not, the members of this family became the Company’s chief broker/merchant in Kasimbazar. However, in the second decade of the eighteenth century someone called ‘Kanta’ became the chief broker in Kasimbazar. Later on he became famous as ‘Kanto Babu’, Warren Hasting’s baniyan, and the founder of the ‘Kasimbazar Raj’ – Krishnakanta Nandi. But he was dismissed from service in 1731 because of his trouble with the Company’s chief in Kasimbazar, Stackhouse, and Hatoo Katma was made the chief merchant. In 1737 he was replaced by Balai or Balaram Katma. The post of chief merchant was abolished, like the one in Calcutta, in 1741.17 It appears that the dadni merchants of Kasimbazar were more united and independent-minded than their peers in Calcutta. This will be clear from a few cases in Kasimbazar, one of which is as follows. In 1742, the Kasimbazar Council asked the dadni merchants to give security for the advance given to them for supply of goods. The merchants ‘in a body’ refused to give security stating that most of them had been supplying textiles and other products to the different groups of traders like the Gujaratis, Multanis, Armenians and other Asian merchants for bigger sums than the Europeans but they never gave any security for the advance given to them. They argued that if any security was given, it will impair their reputation as many of them were quite rich and established merchants. The Council was thus forced to yield to the merchants’ objections and desisted from demanding security.18 In Dhaka, one Sabra served as the Company’s broker for a long time. After his death, in the absence of any other competent candidate and at the behest of the dadni merchants, his brother Manickchand was appointed the chief merchant.19 It is to be noted here that, like the English, all the European Companies had to appoint a chief merchant/broker for procuring export goods. The Chief of the Ostend Company in Bengal, Alexander Hume, wrote in 1730 that all the Companies appointed a chief merchant/broker for procuring the export commodities, otherwise it would have been very difficult to get the required quantity within reasonable price and scheduled time.20 The chief merchant of the French at Chandernagore was Indra Narayan

84

SPINNING YARNS

Chaudhury and that of the Dutch in Chinsurah was Harikrishna Roy, both of whom were reputed and influential merchants.21 PROBLEMS FACED BY THE

COMPANIES IN PROCUREMENT

The Companies faced many a problem in the procurement of textiles, a major one of them being a chronic shortage of working capital throughout the period under review. The problem of inadequate funds was accentuated by the poor demand for the Companies’ imports into Bengal. Though the quantity of the merchandise imported by them was not generally large, the market even for this small amount was strictly limited. The only items for which there was a steady demand were bullion and specie. But their supply was seasonal and limited. Again, the Companies had to confront some peculiar problems in converting the bullion and specie into local currency. Another difficulty that they had to face was to provide funds for investment in the proper season which started generally soon after the shipping season was over, i.e. February or March at the latest. Hence they had to begin contracting for goods for the next year’s investment from around April. But by that time, they needed a stock to be left for such investments in India after paying for the previous year’s supplies. The problem was aggravated by the fact that often the Companies failed to pay the arrears due to the merchants for the previous year and an advance for the next year’s investments. But the Council of the different European factories were very often in a helpless position which is well illustrated when the Calcutta Council of the English Company noted in 1720 that their merchants were ‘very uneasy and daily complaining for want of usual advance on Dadney besides their last year’s arrears due to them’.22 The situation was sometimes exasperating as is apparent from the Fort William Consultations of 29 May 1741:23 There being due . . . [a large amount] to our merchants on balance of the past year’s account and we having no money to clear off those balances or advance them on this year’s contract . . . they are very clamorous for either money or bills at Interest to be given them alleging they cannot perform the new contract without being forced to borrow all the money they can get at Interest to send to the aurungs.

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

85

The Companies’ problem of working capital was accentuated by the fact that the ships carrying bullion from Europe/England did not reach Bengal on time regularly; often they were much behind schedule. Again, it was difficult for them to coin money in Bengal mints for various reasons.24 As a result, the Companies had no other way of solving the problem of shortage of liquid capital but by borrowing from the local credit market. Luckily for the Companies, the credit market in Bengal was highly organized and efficiently managed. There was indeed a remarkable growth in the financial machinery for credit and exchange, and specialized activities of a class of merchants, especially the shroffs, undoubtedly point towards the fact the merchant capital and commercial organization were highly developed in the early eighteenth-century Bengal. But the problem here was that the rate of interest was quite high while in Surat then the rate was much lower. Still the Companies had no other alternative but to borrow money in Bengal. However, after the repeated requests of the English Company to reduce the rate, Jagat Seth Fatehchand reduced the rate to 9 per cent in 1740.25 The Companies borrowed money mainly from the House of the Jagat Seths who were referred to as the ‘greatest banker of the world’ not only by Robert Orme, the official historian of the English Company, but by the officials of the European Companies, especially the Directors of the Dutch Company in Bengal.26 But the big dilemma for them was that they were compelled to borrow though the rate of interest was high which, according to the Companies’ authorities, was a ‘rank poison to our commerce’ or to give up trade in India which was not desirable at all. This is well illustrated by the fact that Dupleix, the chief of the French in Bengal, while describing Jagat Seth Fatechand as the ‘greatest of Jews’ and ‘our chopping block’, had to take loans to the tune of one to three hundred thousand rupees a year from him. He had to borrow money also from the Katmas, the rich and powerful family of Kasimbazar.27 However, there is little doubt that the most substantial lender to the European Companies was the house of the Jagat Seth. Even in the early years between 1718 and 1730, the English Company borrowed from the Jagat Seth at Murshidabad on an average more than Rs. 0.4 million a year.28 In the three years between 1755 and 1757, the Dutch debt to the house of Jagat Seth amounted to

86

SPINNING YARNS

Rs. 2.4 million.29 In 1757 alone the Dutch borrowed 0.4 million from the Seths and the French debt at the time of the fall of Chandernagore in March 1757 amounted to Rs. 1.5 million.30 Captain Fenwick, a free merchant in Bengal, estimated that that the French debt in 1747-8 was around Rs. 17 lakh (1.7 million) while William Watts wrote to Clive on 18 February 1757 that the French owed some Rs. 1.3 million to the Seths. This only corroborates the fact that the procurement to the European Companies depended a lot on their borrowings from the bankers, shroffs and other merchants in the credit market. As Calcutta was the main factory of the English Company, let us have a look at the dadni merchants of Calcutta who provided the bulk of its investment there. As mentioned earlier, most of the merchants in the early years belonged to the Seth and Basak families who were the principal merchants of the weaving caste community of Calcutta. Later on when the Company’s export trade expanded, merchants from other communities and castes began to provide different export commodities to the English. It is interesting that Name of the merchant Laksmikanta Sett Radhaballav Sett Giridhar Gangaram Sovaram Basak Ajodhyaram Basak Pitambar Sett Krishnachandra Sett Gourcharan Sur Kunja Basak Ramkishore Radhu Datta Laksminarayan Das Benode Datta Bankubehari Seth Kunja Basu Ramkisore Teli Ram Santosh

Amount of Contract (Rs.)

Name of the Merchant

Amount of Contract (Rs.)

65,000 65,000 10.000 65,000 65,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 25,000 10,000

Jugal Bomin (Brahmin?) Manickchand Bomin (Brahmin?) Nayan Nath Das Nayanchand Anandchand Kriishna Mitra Sachiram Datta Nayan Dalal Panchu Katma Brajmohan Katma Lokenath Katma Dulal Katma Nantu Katma Pran Kopri (Kapur?) Anup Kopri (Kapur?) Bhuban Katma Bijlinath Kishorechand

20,000 10,000 10,000 80,000 20,000 10,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 20,000

Note: Most of the Katmas had by this time left Kasimbazar and settled in Calcutta.

87

P RO C U R E M E N T O F T E X T I L E S F O R E X P O RT

quite a few non-Bengali merchants joined the group of the dadni merchants. Among the Bengalis there were merchants from different castes like Kayasthas and Vaidyas, Mitra, Datta, Basu, Mallick, Das to Telis, etc. Still then, the Seths and Basaks dominated the list of dadni merchants even in the early 1750s. That this well borne out by the following the list of dadni merchants with whom the Company contracted for the supply of goods in 1752, the year before the dadni system was abolished.31 Besides the above the dadni contract, the Company also contracted with the following merchants for procurement of goods against ready money, without any advance being given at the time of the contract. CONTRACT FOR GOODS AT READY MONEY NO ADVANCE

Bishnudas Sett Radharaman Mitra Dayakrishna Kenaram Roy

Rs. 25,000 Rs. 60,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000

Radhamohan Basak Radhakrishna Mallick Jagmohan Basak Jagattaran Datta

Rs. 20,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000

Note: [Umichand who provided ready money for a substantial amount in the late 1740s and early 1750s could not contract for this particular year as he was reported to be out of station.]

NOTES 1. Giorgio Riello and Tirthankar Roy (eds.), How India Clothed the World, 1994. 2. S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 124, 130, 206. 3. S. Chaudhury and Keram Kevonian (eds.), The Armenians in Asian Trade, ‘Introduction’ by S. Chaudhury. 4. S. Chauhdury, From Prosperity to Decline. 5. John Fryer, A New Account, p. 217; J. Ovington, Voyage to Surat, p. 401. 6. It was reported that Vithaldas Parekh paid Rs. 100,000 to become the broker at Surat. Another broker, Rustomjee Maneckjee, paid Rs. 20,000 as ‘customary present’ to the English Company, vide, O.C. 7222, para 48, vol. 58, 14 Sep­ tember 1700. However the Bengal factors reported in 1703 that ‘it was never the custom here in Bengal for brokers to buy their places’, O.C. 8110, vol. 65, 25 January 1703. 7. Fact. Records, Calcutta, vol. 3, pt. II, f. 90. 8. BPC, Range 1, vol. 4, ff. 46-46vo; S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organization, pp. 147-8. 9. C & B Abstr., vol. 2, f. 320, 31 January 1722.

88 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

SPINNING YARNS

DB, vol. 101, f. 465, para 36, 14 February 1723. BPC, Range 1, vol. 9, ff. 9-9vo, 13 March 1732. Ibid., Range 1, vol. 19, f. 289vo, 18 June 1747. Ibid., vol. 24, ff. 33-34vo, 17 and 20 May 1751. Ibid., vol. 24, ff. 136, 137vo, 23 and 27 May 1751. Ibid., vol. 26, f. 161vo, 4 June 1753. For the details of the gomasta system, see, S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 102-8. BPC, Range 1, vol. 8, f. 321, 7 December 1730; vol. 12, f. 162, 16 April 1737; Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 5, Consults. 5 February, 21 February, 19 March 1737. Factory Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 26 February, 1742. Factory Records, Dacca, vol. 2, Consults., 27 January 1738. Alexander Hume’s ‘Memorie’, General Indische Compagnie, 5769. S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, p. 65. BPC, vol. 4, f. 274, 18 August 1720. Ibid., vol. 4, ff. 404vo-405, 29 May 1721. See, S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 77-84. BPC, Range 1, vol. 14, ff. 317-17vo, 11 December 1740. VOC 2629, f. 967, 14 March 1744; VOC 2763, f. 467, 20 March 1750; VOC 2849, ff. 128-128vo, 14 February 1755. Indrani Ray, ‘Some Aspects of French Presence of Bengal, 1731-40’, CHJ, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1976, pp. 99-101. Kantu Papers, BPC, vol. 8, f. 256, Annex. to Consults. 29 June 1730; J.H. Little, Jagat Seth, ed. N.K. Sinha, ‘Introduction’, p. X. Computed from VOC 2874. J.H. Little, Jagat Seth, ed. N.K. Sinha, ‘Introduction’, p. XI. BPC, Range 1, vol. 25, f. 166.

CHAPTER 8

Role of the European Companies in Bengal’s Export Trade

t is common knowledge that textiles from India, especially from Bengal, were exported to different countries including Europe. But needless to say, the export to Europe/England increased considerably in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, consequent to the discovery of the direct maritime route to India by Vasco da Gama in 1498. But the question is whether they were interested in textile export from India/Bengal from the very beginning? The answer is: not at all. The Portuguese who dominated the Indian Ocean trade in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century were interested mainly in the export of spices from the Indonesian islands and this ensured a very high rate of profit which was sometime more than 1,000 per cent. Lured by the almost unbelievable rate of profit, the north Europeans namely, the English and the Dutch, formed the first joint stock companies – the English East India Company (EIC) in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company (VOC – Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie) in 1602 respectively.1 Around the mid-seventeenth century, the two Companies went ahead leaving behind the Portuguese and the Portuguese trade lost much of its importance. The two Companies started their operations in Bengal about the early 1650s – the English established their factory at Hughli and the Dutch in Chinsurah. Hughli was the major port of Bengal from the late sixteenth to the mid-eighteenth century.2 The French came later in the 1680s. Among the other Europeans, the

I

90

SPINNING YARNS

Ostend Company and the Danish Company began their trade in the early eighteenth century but their role in Bengal’s export trade was not very significant. Throughout the first half of the eighteenth century, it was the Dutch and the English Companies which were most active in the export trade from Bengal. Indeed their trade overshadowed other European Companies throughout the period under review, except the French, who under the energetic management of Governor Dupleix, pursued the Bengal trade with some vigour in the late 1730s and early 1740s. From the very beginning, like the Portuguese, the objective of the two European Companies was to export spices directly from the South-East Asia – the Spice Islands namely, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Malacca, Moluccas, etc. – to Europe. This was the most profitable branch of trade in the seventeenth century, as demonstrated by the Portuguese. The Companies went to the Spice Islands mostly with silver to pay for the spices. In this context it may be mentioned that before the discovery of the direct sea-route from Europe to Asia by Vasco da Gama, the Europeans discovered the ‘new world’, where they found silver mines, especially in South America and this silver was now brought to Europe. As a result, much of this silver could now be used for buying spices in the Southeast Asia. But as luck would have it, the Companies found to their utter astonishment that what was in demand in the Spice Islands was not silver but cheap, coarse and coloured cotton cloth from India. So they turned their attention to the Coromandel Coast where plenty of such textiles were easily available. But they realized after some time that smooth trade in Coromandel was not possible: trade here became uncertain and expensive because of political instability, chronic wars, famines, etc., and they had to search for some other place congenial for trade. They found it in Bengal. First of all, there was an abundance of cheap, coarse and coloured fabrics in Bengal which were in a way much better than those produced in the Coromandel. Second, Bengal also provided raw silk which, though a little inferior to Persian or Chinese silk (which so far fed the Italian/European silk industry), was much cheaper than the said varieties. Last but not the least, Bengal could also provide the best quality saltpetre at a very reasonable price for which there was a great demand in Europe because of the civil wars

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

91

in many parts of Europe. Needless to say, saltpetre was an important ingredient for making gunpowder. It could also be used as ballast for Europe-bound ships which generally used iron for the purpose but which was very uneconomical (because it could not be sold at a profit). All these considerations led the Companies to move to Bengal for trade in the mid-seventeenth century. But it was not until the mid-1670s that the Bengal trade assumed any significant importance in the Asiatic trade of either Company. It was from around the 1670s that there was a sudden expansion of Bengal raw silk, which received a further boost in the 1680s because of a higher demand for the commodity in Europe. However, it was the big boom in the export of Bengal textiles from around the early 1680s that revolutionized the pattern of the Asiatic trade of the Companies. From then onward Bengal became the most dominant partner of the European trade from Asia, which was mostly carried on by the two major European Companies – the Dutch and the English East Indian Companies. Thus from around the 1680s till the middle of the eighteenth century, the two Companies played the most important role in Bengal’s maritime and international trade. But after the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, it was a different story altogether because the English Company along with its servants, by virtue of its total control over Bengal polity and economy, became intent on wiping out all other Asian and European rivals from any worthwhile trade in Bengal.3 Be that as it may, it is interesting to note that the Asiatic trade of the European Companies which began as a bilateral trade between Europe and the Spice Islands changed its character completely in the course of time. From the original bilateral trade – between Europe and South-East Asia – it changed to triangular trade – between Europe, India (for cheap cotton piece-goods) and the Spice Islands (where the Indian textiles were exchanged for spices to be exported to Europe). Finally, it became bilateral again, mainly between Europe and India/ Bengal with the marked difference from about the 1680s that Bengal emerged as the chief theatre of Asian trade of the European Companies.4 The big question that crops up now is how to explain the boom in the demand for and the consequent large export of Indian/Bengal textiles to Europe from the 1680s. In general historians are apt to

92

SPINNING YARNS

come up with the obvious economic explanation for this phenomenon namely, that the Bengal textiles were much cheaper and of better quality than any other varieties in the world market. The reason for cheapness and fine quality of Bengal piece-goods was that both labour and provisions were much cheaper in Bengal than anywhere else and the Bengal artisans and manufacturers had a long tradition of high skill in weaving both fine and ordinary textiles.5 All this is true but only the necessary, not sufficient, factors to explain the sudden boom for the Bengal textiles. The phenomenal increase in demand from Europe can only be explained by the revolutionary change in the consumer taste in contemporary European society during the period. The ‘Indian craze’ or ‘Indiennes’ is well reflected in the contemporary European/English literature of the time. That the fashion rather than the cheapness of Indian/Bengal textiles worked as an active economic factor in the textile export to Europe is revealed in several pamphlets of the time. The best example of this is to be found J. Carry’s tract of 1695 wherein he wrote:6 It was scarce thought about twenty Years since that we should ever see Calicoes, the Ornaments of our greatest Gallants (for such they are, whether we call them Muslins, shades or anything else) when they were then rarely used, save in Shrouds for the Dead, and chiefly among the Poor who could not go to the Price of finer Linnen, and yet are unwilling to imitate the Rich; but now few think themselves well dresst till they are made up in Calicoes, both Men and Women, Calico Shirts, Neckcloths, Cuffs, PocketHandkerchiefs for the former, Headdresses, Nightroyls, Hoods, Sleeves, Aprons, Gowns, Petticoats and what not for the latter, besides India-Stockings for the both Sexes.

No less revealing than the above is the speech by Pollexfen before the Board of Trade in 1696 describing the state of Indian commodities in 1681. He said: ‘As ill weeds grow apace, so these manufactured goods from India met with such a kind reception that from the greatest gallants to the meanest Cook Maids, nothing was thought so fit to adorn their Persons as the Fabrick from India.’7 Even the Directors of the English Company (and of course other Companies too) were well aware of the change in the consumer taste, and there began a race for procuring novelties. Thus one finds them instructing their officials in India in the following vein:8

93

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

Note this for a constant and general Rule that in all flowered Silks you change the fashion and flower every year as much as you can, for English Ladies, and they say the French and other Europeans will give twice as much for a new thing not seen in Europe before though worse, than they will give for a better silk of the same fashion worn the former year.

Again in 1682 the Directors perhaps made the most pointed remark about the change in the consumer taste: ‘. . . nothing pleases so much as variety everyone desiring something that their neighbours have not like it.’9 Thus it is more than clear that the huge demand for Bengal/Indian textiles in Europe/England from around 1680s was due to a sudden change in the consumer taste of the people in those countries. At the same time it is true that the low cost of the Bengal textiles acted as a factor in the popularity of the new fashion. An important contributory factor in the expansion of the textiles export from Bengal, especially plain white piece-goods, was the rapid growth of the cotton printing industry in England and other parts of Europe in the early eighteenth century.10 Of the major two European Companies, the Dutch had a definite lead over their rivals, the English, in the export of Bengal textiles to Europe/England (even excluding the Dutch export to various Asian markets) from the middle of the seventeenth up to the first decade of the eighteenth century. Though the Dutch maintained the lead even towards the close of the seventeenth and early years of the eighteenth century, the competition was severe and it was a near thing. The position altered somewhat in the second decade of the eighteenth century (Table 8.1) when the English established their lead from 1710/11 to 1713/14 which in the next quadrennial period, TABLE 8.1: QUADRENNIAL TOTAL & AVERAGE OF

DUTCH & ENGLISH TEXTILE EXPORTS 1710/111717/18

Years 1710/11-1713/14 1714/15-1717/18

Dutch

English

Total Pieces

Average

Total Pieces

Average

7,45,995 9,25,254

1,86,497 2,31,313

10,56,587 9,15,918

2,64,147 2,28,980

Source: Dutch exports computed from Om Prakash, Dutch Company, p. 195. English exports from S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organization, p. 258.

94

SPINNING YARNS

1714/15 to 1717/18, the share of the two Companies was almost equal. The great importance of textiles in the export lists of the Companies will be apparent from the percentage share of the commodity in the total value from Bengal throughout the first half of the eighteenth century (Table 8.2). In fact, throughout this period textiles formed the largest single item in the Companies’ export bills. In the early years of this century the share of the textile value in the total export value from Bengal was 54 per cent for the Dutch Company while for the English it was 71 per cent. Towards the end of our period, the share of the Dutch Company ranged between 74 and 78 per cent whereas the English share varied from 80 to 92 per cent. This only confirms the fact that textile was the most important item in the export trade of the European Companies throughout the first half of the eighteenth century. The huge demand for Bengal textiles in Europe is also reflected in the orders sent out from Europe to Bengal. These orders were generally sent out about two years before (though occasionally only one year) for the shipment of goods in a particular year. The fluctuations in TABLE 8.2: SHARE PERCENTAGE OF TEXTILE VALUE IN THE TOTAL EXPORT VALUE DUTCH & THE ENGLISH SELECT YEARS 170055

Years 1701/2 1702/3 1748/9 1749/50 1750/1 1751/2 1752/3 1753/4 1754/5

Dutch Export

English Export

54.19 54.19 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 78.42 74.07

71.00 71.00 88.98 91.99 87.42 80.07 79.55 88.11 80.82

Source: Dutch share, 1701/2 and 1702/3 taken from Om Prakash, Dutch Company, p. 72 and, 1753/4 and 1754/5 collected and computed from the VOC Records. English share for 1701/2 to 1702/3 taken from S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organization, p. 254; 1748/9 to 1752/3 collected and computed from Bengal General Journal & Ledgers, vols. 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54 and for 1753/4 to 1754/5 calculated with one-year lag from K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia, pp. 510, 545; n.a. = not available.

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

95

the demand for different varieties of textiles are reflected in these orders. The annual list sent out to Bengal generally contained the names of every type of textiles, the quantity of every type to be supplied and sometimes also the price range within which to buy a particular type. But despite all these detailed instructions, an interesting feature of the export trade from Bengal was that often some of the textiles sent were vastly in excess of what actually was ordered from Europe, while some other varieties fell far short of the quantity asked for. The reasons for this were the inflated demand from Europe on the one hand, and on the other hand factors like the supply condition in Bengal, the reluctance of the dadni merchants to bring in goods which did not yield them a handsome profit as also their attempts, in collusion with the Company servants, to dump the Companies with some textiles which they procured cheap. The most glaring example of oversupply of goods, some of which were not even ordered from Europe, presumably in connivance with the Indian merchants, was by the Fort William Council in 1727/8 for which the chief of the Council, Henry Frankland, was dismissed from the Company’s service.11 The problem was not confined only to the English, the Dutch too faced the same with oversupply of several varieties which Heeren Seventeen had to sell in auctions at considerable loss.12 The list of textiles ordered from Bengal (Table 8.3) also makes it clear that the English were far ahead of the Dutch in textile export from around 1720 onwards, something which, as we shall see later, will also be borne out by the actual exports by the two Companies during the period under review. Quite a few interesting features of the textile trade emerge from a comparative study of the orders sent out to Bengal by the two Companies. First, the most noticeable thing is the predominance of ordinary calicoes, the cheapest Bengal textile, in the orders of both the Companies. This only indicates that there was not only a greater demand for this variety, but it was perhaps also most profitable to export it than the rest. Second, the demand for ordinary calicoes was growing steadily except for the Dutch Company in 1750 when it reduced the order for this particular category to a great extent – cutting it down to about 1/3 of what was ordered in 1740. Third, the order

3,67,500

Total

English

5,01,000

1,57,000 59,000 1,53,000 38,000 94,000

1720

2,71,120

1,38,400 43,200 36,660 33,160 19,700

Dutch

English

6,50,100

3,39,400 1,39,500 98,200 28,000 45,000

1733

3,89,960

2,41,500 45,300 57,360 37,500 8,300

Dutch

English

7,50,500

3,17,000 1,38,700 2,09,900 36,800 48,100

1740

3,37,900

87,000 85,200 89,400 56,400 19,900

Dutch

English

8,28,600

4,00,000 93,600 2,62,300 41,000 31,700

1750

Source: Dutch orders collected and computed from the data in the Resolutions of the Heeren XVII, VOC, vols. 117, 120, 122, 126 and the English from DB, vols. 100, 106, 108, 111. In the Dutch orders for 1720, only the minimum amount ordered for a particular type is computed here. For example, while 3,000 to 3,500 fine humums were ordered, we took the minimum, i.e. 3,000 in our computation. When the maximum amount is taken into consideration, the total number of pieces ordered would amount to 3,76,000, and not 3,67,500 as shown in the table. But this occurs only in the order for 1720 and not for other years computed here.

1,27,600 39,400 1,21,500 51,000 28,000

Dutch

Ordr. Calicoes Fine Calicoes Muslins Slik Pc.goods Mxd. Pc.goods

Textile Category

TABLE 8.3: ORDERS FOR TEXTILES FROM EUROPE AND ENGLAND NUMBER OF PIECES ORDERED IN SELECT YEARS

97

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

for muslins, the finest and most expensive of all Bengal textiles, was next only to those for ordinary calicoes. The priority for these two categories of textiles was maintained throughout the period under review and like the ordinary calicoes, the order for muslins too was growing steadily except for 1753 when both the Dutch and the English ordered fewer quantities than in 1720. In fact, the Dutch order for 1720, out of the four years for which the orders are presented in Table 8.3. Next, what becomes apparent is that the orders for three other varieties namely, fine calicoes, silk and mixed piece-goods were much smaller compared with first two categories, and they fluctuated quite a bit depending mainly on the amount ordered for the first two categories.13 Finally, while the total number of pieces ordered by the Dutch remained more or less steady during the period except a decline in 1753, the English orders show a steady increase throughout. However what is not reflected in the Table 8.3 but which is of considerable interest is the importance of several types of textiles in the orders from England. The two single items that were in great demand were the garras, an ordinary calico and the other khasas, a relatively more expensive muslin, throughout the period under review. Table 8.4 clearly shows the predominance of garras and khasas in the list of orders from Europe, especially in consideration of the fact that every year at least 50 to 55 different types of piece-goods were ordered from Bengal. However, it is not difficult to relate the predominance of plain white cotton piece-goods in general, and garras and khasas in particular, in the orders sent from England to the domestic situation there. The wool and silk weavers in England succeeded through their protests in having an Act passed in 1700 TABLE 8.4: SHARE OF GARRAS AND KHASAS IN THE TOTAL

TEXTILES ORDERED SELECT YEARS 172050

Years 1720 1733 1740 1750

Dutch

Orders

Garras

Shr. %

Khasas Shr. %

60,000 60,000 80,000 10,000

16.33 22.13 20.51 2.96

33,000 16,400 25,000 27,000

Source: Same as in Table 8.3.

8.98 6.05 6.41 7.99

English Garras

Shr. %

80,000 202,000 144,000 185,000

15.97 31.07 19.19 22.33

Orders Khasas

Shr. %

58,000 11.58 39,700 6.11 59,600 7.94 146,000 17.62

98

SPINNING YARNS

which prohibited the imports into England of ‘all wrought silks, Bengals and stuffs mixed with silk or herba, of the manufacture of Persia, China and the East Indies and all calicoes, painted, dyed or printed or stained there’.14 This resulted in an increase in the export of plain cotton and muslin rather than other varieties from Bengal. A the same time, as we have noted earlier, another important factor that accounted for an increase in the rise of the import into England of plain white and muslin cloth from Bengal was the rapidly growing cotton printing industry in Europe, especially in England around London.15 The preference for garras among all other plain and coarse cotton fabrics was obviously because of their cheapness. The cotton printers, unlike the craftsmen of the old type, were industrial entre­ preneurs and were always eager to expand their profit by lowering the prices of their products. More expensive plain muslin like khasa was also welcomed by the printers, because after printing these could be sold to rich people at home and also re-exported profitably. In 1720 another Act was passed according to which any calico was prohibited in England.16 But that too failed to prevent the Company from ordering large quantities of textiles from Bengal, something which will be obvious from Table 8.3. This was because, on the one hand, the Company tried to keep its supply pouring in so as to cope with the buoyant demand of cotton printing industry while on the other it continued the old policy of re-exporting the Bengal textiles with handsome profit Even in the 1730s the Dutch merchants were buying textiles imported by the English Company.17 Regarding the actual exports of the two Companies to Europe and England, if the total number of pieces exported from Bengal is any indicator, the English had established a decisive role over the Dutch from the early 1730s which was maintained steadily till the mideighteenth century, completely reversing the trend in the second half of the seventeenth and the first two decades of the eighteenth century. Table 8.5 below illustrating the total number of the pieces of textiles by the two Companies from Bengal will bear this out. Several interesting features emerge from Table 8.5. Throughout the period, the Dutch exports show a steady increase culminating in the early 1750s when the wide gap with the English exports of the 1730s and 1740s were greatly reduced. This was of course because of

99

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S TABLE 8.5: QUINQUENNIAL TOTAL AND AVERAGE OF ANNUAL TEXTILE EXPORTS DUTCH AND ENGLISH, 173055

Years 1730/1-1734/5 1740/1-1744/5 1750/1-1754/5

Dutch Exports

English Exports

Total Pieces

Average Pieces

Total Pieces

Average Pieces

8,35,357 10,21,899 13,42,789

1,67,071 2,04,380 2,68,558

30,26,154 30,26,405 19,51,952

6,05,231 6,05,281 3,90,390

Source & Note: Dutch exports collected and computed from Export Invoices in VOC records; English Exports computed from detailed data provided by K.N. Chaudhuri. For Dutch ships Lis (1743-4), Spanderswout and De Snoek (1754­ 5), though the invoice value is available, the breakdown of the cargoes could not be traced. Interpolated data is used for missing cargoes of these ships.

the fact that while on the one hand the Dutch export increased steadily, the English exports on the other were reduced dramatically in the early 1750s. The average annual English exports were strikingly almost at the same level in the first five years of the 1730s and the 1740s while in the 1750s, they declined sharply by about 35 per cent of the earlier levels. Interestingly, the orders from Europe during these years show (Table 8.3) that while the Dutch orders fluctuated within a limited range, the English orders show a steady annual increase of around 0.1 million pieces for each of the four years we have tabulated earlier. The obvious question that arises is why the English exports dropped in the early 1750s, though the orders from England by far surpassed those for earlier years. The general assumption is that the chronic Maratha invasions in the 1740s was so disastrous for the economy that it resulted in the decline of trade in general and the textile trade in particular, and as such the reduction in English exports too.18 But that does not explain the situation fully. There is little doubt that that the Maratha incursions created serious dislocation in the economy but it was mainly local in character and only a temporary phenomenon. The economy and production recovered from the shock very soon, so that the impact of the invasions was not so devastating as it was generally assumed to have been. Had it been really so, the Dutch exports would not have gone up so steadily in the 1740s and 1750s as is evident from Table 8.5. The decline in the total number of pieces

100

SPINNING YARNS

exported by the English Company in the 1750s can be explained to some extent by the fact that there was a relative shift in the different types/categories of textiles exported during these years. As will be evident from Table 8.7, while the percentage share of cheaper varieties like ordinary calicoes was around 46 per cent in the early 1730s, it came down to about 31 per cent of the total volume of textile exported during the first five years of the 1740s and 1750s. But the share of the expensive items like muslins went up from 24 per cent in the 1730s to 34 per cent in the 1740s and to 39 per cent in the 1750s. The reason for this was twofold: first the orders from England too show a sharp increase in the demand for muslins like khasas (from 7.94 to 17.62 per cent) while for the coarse calicoes like garras the increase was only marginal (19.19 to 22.33 per cent).19 Second, the decline was also due to the fact that the procurement of ordinary calicoes like garras and dosooties which were produced mainly in Birbhum, Burdwan and Kasimbazar areas became extremely difficult from around the early 1740s because of the incessant Maratha inroads which affected those areas most. Moreover, as the muslins were more expensive items than ordinary calicoes like garras, the larger export of the former would only mean much greater decrease in the export of the latter if the total value of textile exports was to be same. It was because of this that there was no proportionate decline in the total number of pieces exported and the total value of textile exported in the early 1740s and early 1750s. That the Maratha invasions did not affect either the production of most of the varieties or the total value of the textile exports to any considerable extent will be evident from a comparative study of the total volume and the total value of the textile exports by the English Company in the quinquennial periods from 1740/1 to 1744/5 and 1748/9 to 1752/3. The above dates/periods are suitable for such an analysis because the Maratha incursions began in April 1742 and ended by May/June 1751. As such, they include the years prior to, during and immediately after the invasions. Another important reason for selecting the period up to 1752/3 is that from 1753, the investment pattern was changed from dadni to gomasta system, something which could have some impact on exports from 1753/4 and it was really so.

101

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S TABLE 8.6: VOLUME AND VALUE OF ENGLISH TEXTILE EXPORTS QUINQUENNIAL PERIOD, 1740/11744/5 & 1748/91752/3

Years 1740/1-1744/5 1748/9-1752/3

Total Pieces

Average Pieces

Total Value (Rs.)

Average Value (Rs.)

30,26,154 18,65,780

6,05,231 3,71,356

1,54,10,680 1,51,47,699

30,82,136 30,29,539

Source & Note: Figures for 1740/1 to 1744/5 computed from K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 545 with one year lag and converting the value from pound sterling to rupees @ one pound = Rs. 8. Figures for 1748/9 to 1752/3 collected and computed from Bengal General Journals and Ledgers, vols. 46, 48, 50, 52, 54.

Here a possible argument that could be advanced is that the total value of the English textile export did not did not alter very much despite the substantial reduction in the total number of pieces exported in the quinquennial period from 1748/9 to 1752/3. This is possible because of the fact that unit price of textiles had gone up considerably during the period. But as we will show later, the cost price of textiles did not reveal any marked increase during the period under question, except a marginal rise in the prices of some ordinary piece-goods. There are also interesting differences in the composition of the different categories of textile exported by the two Companies which will be evident from Table 8.7 which shows the share percentage of different categories in the total textile exports during the period under review.20 What is clearly reflected in Table 8.7 is that the lion’s share of the Dutch export was of ordinary calicoes while in case of the English, muslin constituted the major category of textiles exported. The share of coarse calicoes in the Dutch export during the period varied from about 40 to 56 per cent, the percentage share being 46, 40 and 56 in the first five years of the three decades (1730-55) respectively. In the English exports, while the share of the coarse calicoes was 46 per cent in the 1730s but in the 1740s and 1750s it remained lower at 31 per cent. The share of the fine calicoes did not very much, constituting 13 to 20 per cent of the Dutch exports and 19 to 22 per cent of the English exports. In case of muslins, while the Dutch share fluctuated between 18 and 26 per cent, the English exports show an

102

SPINNING YARNS

TABLE 8.7: SHARE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

OF TEXTILES EXPORTED BY THE COMPANIES 173055

FIRST FIVE YEARS OF EACH DECADE

Textile Categories Ordn. Calicoes Fine Calicoes Muslins Silk piece-goods Mxd. piece-goods Misc. Total

Dutch Exports

English Exports

1730s

1740s

1750s

1730s

1740s

1750s

46.50 14.99 20.23 10.44 7.94 N.A.

39.65 19.89 26.22 10.08 3.96 N.A.

55.60 12.66 17.79 11.19 2.67 N.A.

26.02 20.30 24.44 3.18 5.98 0.08

30.60 22.49 34.08 4.56 7.88 0.39

30.80 19.17 39.26 66.36 3.72 0.69

100

100

100

100

100

100

Source & Note: Dutch exports collected and computed from export invoices in VOC records; English exports computed from detailed data provided by K.N. Chaudhuri.

increase of 10 per cent in the 1740s and 5 per cent in the 1750s. On the other hand, the Dutch share of silk piece-goods remained almost steady between 10 and 11 per cent while the English share shows an increase of about 1 to 2 per cent during these years. So far as the mixed piece-goods are concerned, the Dutch figure show a steady decline and the English share fluctuated quite a bit. What all this means in analytical terms is that the two most important categories of textiles exported by both the Companies throughout the period were the cheapest ordinary calicoes on the one hand and muslins, the most expensive of all categories, on the other. So it is not a fact that the Companies exported only the cheap varieties or the most expensive – they exported both the categories in much larger quantities than the medium priced fine calicoes, silk or mixed piece-goods. The major factors behind this pattern of export in textiles was probably that the Companies were catering to the printing industry as also to both the poor and rich sections of the European society. As mentioned earlier, the most suitable textiles for printing came mainly from the two categories, namely, ordinary calicoes and muslins. In the light of the percentage share of the different categories in the total exports, it would be interesting to see how the total value of the Dutch and English exports compared during this period. But for lack of data on the value of Dutch textile exports for most of the

103

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

years, it is not possible to make such a comparative study for the whole period, except for two years – 1753/4 and 1754/5 for which we have the data we need. The comparative volume and value of the Dutch and English exports of textiles for these two years can be seen in Table 8.8. It will be clear from the Table 8.8 that though the average annual export of the English for these two years was Rs. 1,10,239 more than the Dutch export, the average annual of the English exports was Rs. 9,74,546 more than that of the Dutch, making the average unit price of textiles Rs. 8.6 for this difference. But the actual unit price for the Dutch exports was around Rs. 6 and for the English about Rs. 6.8 during these two years.21 This was only because of the fact that in the Dutch exports in these years, the share of the cheap ordinary calicoes was much higher while the largest share in the English exports was taken by the more expensive muslin (Table 8.7). The main implication of the above analysis is that in any computation regarding the price of textiles, the most important factor, among others, that should be taken into account is the total pieces of a particular type of cloth exported and their total value. The actual unit price can only be found out by dividing the total price with the total number of textiles. From that only we can have a rough idea of the unit price of a particular type of textile. Other important factors in finding out the unit price were the actual measurement of the cloth, the aurung TABLE 8.8: VOLUME AND VALUE OF THE DUTCH AND

ENGLISH TEXTILE EXPORTS 1753/4 AND 1754/5

Years

Dutch Exports

English Exports

Total pieces

Value (Rs.)

Total pieces

Value (Rs.)

1753/4 1754/5

2,79,800 2,26,432

16,70,336 13,28,188

3,45,267 3,81,543

22,87,128 26,60,520

Total

5,06,232

29,98,555

7,26,810

49,47,648

Average

2,53,166

14,99, 278

3,63,405

24,73,824

Source & Note: Dutch exports collected and computed from export invoices in VOC records. English exports computed from K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 545 with one year lag. Florin and pound sterling converted to rupees @Re. 1 = fl. 1.5 and 1 pound sterling = Rs. 8.

104

SPINNING YARNS

it was produced in and its quality such as ordinary, medium, fine, superfine, etc. Any generalization such as arriving at the unit price just by dividing the total value by the total number of pieces could be highly misleading.22 DUTCH COMPANY’S INTRAASIATIC

TRADE IN TEXTILES

Bengal textiles played an important role in the intra-Asiatic trade of the Dutch Company, especially in the last decades of the seventeenth and first decade of the eighteenth century. It was only the Dutch, and not the English or the French, who were involved in intra-Asiatic trade. The reason for the participation of the Dutch in this branch of trade was twofold: first, the Dutch had at this period several factories in different parts of Asia with headquarter in Batavia. Second, through the inter-Asiatic trade they wanted to earn some money so that the chronic shortage of fund could be reduced to some extent. The main areas where the Dutch exported textiles in Asia were, in descending order of total pieces exported, mainly Batavia (for distribution in the Indonesian archipelago), the Persian Gulf and Japan while the share of places like Malabar, Ceylon, Coromandel, etc., was not so significant.23 It is to be noted here that the maximum number of pieces, which was even larger than the number of pieces exported in the second half of the seventeenth, was exported in the first decade of the eighteenth century but in the second decade of the century there was a sharp decline in export of textiles which will be evident from Table 8.9. But this declining trend in the Dutch exports to Asian markets TABLE 8.9: DUTCHASIATIC TRADE TEXTILES QUINQUENNIAL

TOTAL & AVERAGE IN PIECES 1705/61709/10 & 1713/141717/18

Destination

1705/6 Total pcs.

1709/10 Average pcs.

1713/14 Total pcs.

1717/18 Average pcs.

Batavia Persian Gulf

2,40,191 1,88,749

48,038 37,750

1,63,726 1,04,449

32,745 20,890

Source & Note: Om Prakash, Dutch Company, pp. 139, 147, 180. As the figures for the Persian Gulf are not available for 1705/6 and 1706/7, the figures for 1702/3 & 1703/4 are included in the period 1705/6-1709/10.

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

105

was completely reversed from at least the early 1730s, if the number of the total pieces exported could be taken as an indication. At the same time it is significant that the Dutch export of Bengal textiles to the Asian countries reached its peak in the first half of the 1730s after which there was again a gradual decline in the first five years of the 1740s and 1750s which is evident in Table 8.10. Several trends of the Dutch export of textiles to Asian countries emerge from a scrutiny of the said table. First, throughout the period, the largest number of piece-goods was exported to Batavia, its share in the total volume of the Dutch exports to Asia increasing from 54 per cent in the early 1730s to 67 per cent in the first quinquennial period of the 1730s and finally to 87 per cent in the 1750s, though there was a decline then in the Dutch textile export to different countries of Asia. Second, though Japan came next to Batavia in the 1730s, having a share of 21 per cent, it lost its place to Persia in the 1740s when its share went down to 6 per cent while the latter’s share rose to around 11 per cent from 6 per cent in the 1730s. However, in the 1750s, Japan recovered its position though its share decreased to 5 per cent as Persia’s share decline to 3 per cent. Among other places, Coromandel and Malabar had an almost equal share of around 5 per cent in the 1730s and both while in the subsequent period their shares declined, the former having only 1.5 per cent and the latter 2 per cent in the 1740s and both almost drawing a nil in the 1750s. In the case of Ceylon, while the share was about 3 per cent in the 1730s, it went up to over 12 per cent in the 1740s but slid down to 4 per cent in the 1750. The share of other markets like Siam, Cochin, Malacca, Mocha, Macassar and the Cape of Good Hope was almost negligible, except for the first two in the 1730s when their share was about 2 per cent each. Looking at the total number of the pieces exported, the Dutch Company’s textile exports to Asian destinations seem quite impressive, especially compared to Europe, the annual average being 2,15,399, 1,28,585, and 85,704 pieces for Asian factories and 1,67,071, 2,04,380 and 2,68,558 for Europe for the first quinquennial period of the 1730s, 1740s and 1750s respectively.24 But what is not revealed in these numbers is the actual category of different textiles exported to Asia and Europe – a fact on which the total value of the exports

10,76,993

Total

2,15,399

1,16,804 46,130 13,076 11,093 11,043 5,617 4,796 4,256 1,620 644 320 0

Avg.

100

54.23 21.42 6.07 5.15 5.13 2.61 2.23 1.98 0.75 0.30 0.13 0.00

Share %

6,42,925

4,32,007 36,086 68,650 9,460 13,930 80,081 0 1,818 0 0 0 893

Total 67.19 5.61 10.68 1.47 2.17 12.46 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 100

1,28,585

Share %

86,40 7,217 13,730 1,892 2,786 16,016 0 364 0 0 0 179

Avg.

1740/1 to 1744/5

Source: Collected and Computed from Dutch Export Invoices in VOC records.

5,84,022 2,30,648 65,382 55,463 55,214 28,084 23,980 21,280 8,100 3,220 1,600 0

Total

Batavia Japan Persian Gulf Coromandel Malabar Ceylon Siam Cochin Malacca Mocha Macassar Cape of Good Hope

Destination

1730/1 to 1734/5

4,28,518

3,71,884 20,344 14,175 400 0 16,835 1,200 120 2,360 0 1,200 0

Total

85,704

74,377 4,069 2,835 80 0 3,367 240 24 472 0 240 0

Av.

100

86.78 4.75 3.31 0.09 0.00 3.93 0.28 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.28 0.00

Share %

1750/1 to 1754/5

TABLE 8.10: DUTCH INTRAASIATIC TRADE IN BENGAL TEXTILES QUINQUENNIAL TOTAL, AVERAGE AND SHARE

PERCENTAGE IN THE TOTAL NO. OF PIECES 173055 FIRST FIVE YEARS OF EACH DECADE

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

107

really depended, especially when we do not have any precise data on the value exclusively of the textile exports for most of the years under review. For such an analysis, which is especially important in the backdrop of J.C. van Leur’s assertion that the Asian trade was mainly a trade in ‘high quality, luxury goods’ to ascertain whether the said statement is valid or not, we select here the three major centres of the Dutch Asian exports namely, Batavia, Japan and Persia for which we tabulate below (Table 8.11) the share percentage of different categories of textiles they received during the period. Significantly, it emerges from Table 8.11 that Batavia which absorbed 54, 67 and 87 per cent respectively of the total textile exports in the first quinquennial period of 1730 to 1755, actually imported the largest amount of gunnies and gunny bags which constituted 45, 60 and 62 per cent of its total textile imports from Bengal in the three quinquennial periods of 1730s and 1750s respectively. The second largest share of textile export to Batavia was of ordinary calicoes, being 47, 22 and 29 per cent respectively in the first three quinqennial periods, while the share of the most expensive item, muslins, was 5, 13 and 5 per cent respectively. These are important facts in terms of the value of the total exports to Batavia. For, gunnies which were strong, coarse calicoes used for making sacks and as covering for bales as also exported as piece-goods were the cheapest among even among ordinary calicoes, their cost price ranging from fl. 0.25 to 0.33 (Rs. 0.16 to 0.20) in the early 1750s while even the cheap variety of coarse calicoes like chintz would have cost fl. 3.76 (Rs. 2.4) at that time.25 So it is reasonable to assume that though the volume of textiles exported to Batavia was quite large in terms of value, it was not very significant as the total share of the cheapest variety, gunny and coarse calicoes, constituted 92, 82 and 91 per cent of the total export in the three quinquennial periods we are analysing here. The exports to Japan, the next major export area, show a different pattern altogether. Silk piece-goods constituted the major category exported to this area, their share being 52, 59 and 46 per cent during the first quinquennial of 1730s, 1740s and 1750s respectivly. Next came mixed piece-goods made of silk and cotton which had a share of 32 and 29 per cent in the early 1730s and 1740s, respectively, while in the 1750s it went down to 11 per cent when the share of

Total pieces Share %

Total Pieces Share %

Total Pieces Share %

Total Pieces Share % C. Persia

Total Pieces Share %

Total Pieces Share%

(1) 1730s

A. Batavia Total Pieces Share % Total Pieces Share % Total Pieces Share % B. Japan

(3) 1750s

(2) 1740s

(1) 1730s

(3) 1750s

(2) 1740s

(1) 1730s

(3) 1750s

(2) 1740s

Years

Categories

0 0.00

32,363 47.14

14,000 21.41

0 –

0 –

0 –

2,63,375 45.10 2,58,961 59.94 2,28, 955 61.57

Gunnies

3,300 23.28

3,582 5.22

22,972 35.14

7,086 34.83

2,980 8.26

27.299 11.84

2,77,184 47.48 96,641 22.37 1,09,668 29.49

Ord. Calicoes

8,275 58.38

23,036 33.56

13,760 21.05

(#) –

(#) –

(#) –

29,985 5.12 53,9986 12.50 16,915 4.54

Muslins

(#) –

(#) –

(#) –

9,381 46.11

21,359 59.19

1,20,989 52.46

(#) – (#) (#) (#) –

Silk

0 0,00

6,069 8.84

10,060 15.39

2,200 10.81

10,370 28.74

72,862 31.59

(#) – (#) (#) (#) –

Mixed

2,600 18.34

3,600 5.24

4,590 7.01

1,677 8.25

1,377 3.81

9.49 4.11

13,414 5.19 22,419 5.19 16,346 4.40

Others

Total

14,175 100

68,650 100

65,382 100

20,344 100

36,086 100

2,30,648 100

5,84,022 100 4,32,007 100 3,71,884 100

TABLE 8.11: PERCENTAGE SHARE OF DIFFERENT TEXTILE CATEGORIES EXPORTED BY THE DUTCH TO

BATAVIA, JAPAN AND PERSIA FIRST FIVE YEARS OF EACH DECADE, 173055

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

109

ordinary calicoes shot up to 35 per cent from the earlier figures of 12 and 8 per cent in the 1730s and 1740s respectively. Though silk fabrics were comparatively more expensive than ordinary calicoes or even mixed piece-goods, the major varieties generally exported to Japan comprised cheaper items like chandrabani, rudrabani, ragiabani (prices around fl. 6.5 in the early 1750s), taffeta (price around fl. 4.5), etc., which were much less expensive than certain types of armosin (price of ‘effene dubbulde’ armosin being fl. 17.8 or dheris striped armosin being fl. 17.93) which were exported only in limited quantities.26 As far as the Persian Gulf region is concerned, the pattern was somewhat different from that of Batavia and Japan. While the share of ordinary calicoes to this area was quite considerable in the early 1730s (35 per cent) and 1750s (23 per cent), it came down to as low as 5 per cent in the 1740s. Gunnies made up for 21 and 47 per cent in the 1730s and 1740s respectively, though they drew a blank in the 1750s. In other words, the cheap coarse calicoes (gunnies and other ordinary calicoes) constituted 56, 52 and 23 per cent of the total export to this area in the first three quinquennial periods of the three decades respectively. The share of muslins, however, increased gradually from 21 per cent in the 1730s to 34 in the 1740s and 58 in the 1750s. But as the total number of muslin exported decline considerably in the 1750s (to only 14,175 pieces from 65,382 in the 1730s and 68,650 in the 1740s, in terms of value again the amount could not have been very significant. What is clear from the above analysis is that though the total number of pieces exported by the Dutch to various Asian destinations was quite large to start within the 1730s and showing a gradual decline in the subsequent period, the total value of these exports does not seem to be very substantial. An illustration of this fact can be given by computing data from the Dutch sources is that the average annual value of the Dutch exports to Japan, the second major area of Dutch exports of Bengal textiles in Asia and where largest number of comparatively more expensive silk piece-goods was exported, amounted to only Rs. 28,650 in the first five years of the 1750s. As such it can be reasonably argued that the importance of the Dutch Company’s intra-Asiatic trade in Bengal textiles in terms of value, was only marginal compared to its exports to Europe during the period under review.

110

SPINNING YARNS

NOTES

1. S. Chaudhury and M. Morineau, eds., Merchants, Companies and Trade, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1-22. 2. S. Chaudhury, ‘The Rise and Decline of Hughli’, BPP, January to June 1967, pp. 33-67. 3. Kristof Glamann, Dutch-Asiatic Trade, p. 144. 4. S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organization, pp. 11-16. 5. Especially, K.N. Chaudhury, Trading World; Om Prakash, Dutch Company. 6. J. Carry, A Discourse Concerning the East India Trade, p. 4. 7. India Office Tracts, vol. 83, Tract no. 7, p. 50. 8. D.B., 20 May 1681, vol. 89, f. 352. 9. D.B., 5 July 1862, vol. 90, f. 7. 10. Serigo Aiolfi, Calicos und gedrucktes Zeug, Stuttgart, 1987, pp. 130-204; R.E. Hartkamp-Jonxis, Sits: Oost-West Relatis in Textiel, pp. 30-42, 54-64. 11. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 253. 12. Kristoff Glamann, Dutch-Asiatic Trade, pp. 145, 150. 13. It should be made explicitly clear that it is extremely difficult to and in some cases almost impossible to classify the textiles into various categories because of their numerous varieties, some which were extinct long back. So the classification made here is only tentative though based on contemporaneous account like Taileffert’s Memorie (Hoge Regering van Batavia, 246), John Taylor’s description of ‘Dacca Cloth Production, 1800’ (Home Misc. Series 456F), references in Dutch and English Company records, the price of different categories worked out from the export invoices of the Companies and contracts with merchants as well as modern works like John Irwin and Shwarts, K.N. Chaudhuri, Hameeda Hossain, etc. The different types, especially those exported by the Companies during the period under review, in each category are mentioned below in alphabetical order. Muslins: adati; alibali; dimity; duriya (doorea); khasa; mulmul; jamdani; jamawar, keper; milmil; nainsook; sarbati; seerhadcona; serband; shalbaft; tanjeb; terndam, etc. Fine calicoes: bethila; chutar; dishooksie; handkerchief (romal); solagazi, sanoe (sanu); etc. Ordinary Calicoes: Atchabanie; bafta; chila; coopie; chintz; dariyabadhi; dosootee (Dutch Zeijlklede), emertie (Dutch amrijtijs); gara/gurra; guinea; gunnie; phota (fota); lakhowire; parcala; salampuri; tuckrie; etc. Silk Piece-Goods: alcativ; allegia; armosin; bandana, charcona; dheri; dotani; fulla cheta; foilie; romal (silk)lunge; mohanbanee; momtanee; maypoost; ragiabanee; reta; rudrabanee; taffeta; taffachela; etc. Mixed Piece-Goods: alliabanee, charkanee, chakla, cushta, elachee, ginghm, romal ( mixed), kharadaree, nilla, peniascos, seersucker, soosee, tepoy, sichterman’s rumal, sichtermann’s saree, etc.

RO L E O F T H E E U RO P E A N C O M PA N I E S

111

14. S. Bhattacharya, East India Company, p. 158. 15. Kristof Glamann, Dutch-Asiatic Trade, p. 151; For the growth of cotton printing industry in Europe, see, S. Aiolfi, Calicos, pp. 192-205. 16. S. Bhattacharya, East India Company, p. 159. 17. Kristof Glamann, Dutch-Asiatic Trade, p. 150. 18. Datta, Alivardi, p. 92, 157-9; K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, pp. 253, 308, 310; P. J. Marshall, Bengal, pp. 71-3. 19. See Table 8.7. 20. Ibid. 21. Calculated from Dutch export invoices in VOC records and for the English from K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 545. 22. For such wrong tabulation of unit price of textiles, see K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, pp. 544-5. 23. Om Prakash, Dutch Company, pp. 138-59, 146-7, 168-9, 178-80. 24. See Tables 8.5 and 8.10 25. Computed from the invoice of ship Brouwer (VOC 2821, ff. 457-9, HB, 20 March 1753 and Anna (VOC 2829, f. 275vo, HB, 15 December 1754. 26. All the prices computed from the invoice of the ship Brouwer, VOC 2821, ff.457-9, HB, 20 March 1753.

CHAPTER 9

Asian Merchants and

Textile Export

o far the received wisdom has been that the European

S

Companies, especially the Dutch and the English, were the major exporters from Bengal in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. It has been maintained that they were the most important factors in the commercial life of Bengal in the period under review. This implies that it was they who played the major role in the export of Bengal textiles as the two most export commodities from Bengal were textiles and raw silk. The implication of the above is that the exports of textiles by the Asian merchants was not at all significant compared with the volume of exports by the Europeans. The extent to which most historians subscribe to the above hypothesis is well reflected in some of their works. To illustrate the point we quote below a few excerpts from their writings/texts. To begin with, let us see what one of the most renowned scholars in the field wrote some time back:1 The development of European trade with Bengal in the late seventeenth century had the effect of shifting the balance radically in favour of the seaborne trade. During the first half of the eighteenth century Europe was unquestionably Bengal’s trading partner. Its textile industry had not only expanded at a rapid rate to keep pace with the increased demand but had also fully adjusted its output to the special specification required for selling in Europe.

Om Prakash, another noted historian in the field, had the following

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

113

to say with regard to the impact of European trade on the Bengal economy:2 ‘. . . the Dutch (and English) trade in Bengal was a net contribution to the growth of the trade from the region, and that the implication of this trade for the local economy were generally favourable. There was increase in the level of output, income, and employment in the economy as a result of this trade.’ Not only that, he even went to the extent to assert that as a result of the European Companies’ trade, ‘the full time jobs attributable to the procurement by the Company to the probable total size of the workforce in the textile manufacturing sector (defined to include the production of raw silk) in the province of Bengal . . . we estimate the textile manufacturing sector at one million.’3 Another authority, S. Arasaratnam’s observation, though describing the situation in the Coromandel, on European trade and textile industry, is extremely significant:4 Before the Europeans came into the textile market, trade in textiles was erratic, seasonal, and highly unpredictable. . . . In such a demand situation, the weaver could not work at leisure and weaving could be carried out side by side with cultivating the fields. This in itself contributed to keeping down the price of textiles. The increased and regular demand caused by the entry of the Europeans into the market created more and steady work for weavers.

The main reason for this sort of contention is not only because of the paucity of material, qualitative and especially quantitative on the exports from Bengal by the Asians but also possibly the Euro-centric attitude of most of the scholars working in the field. Having said that, it should be made clear that there is no point in denying that the Europeans were the dominant factors in Bengal’s sea-borne textile export but that does not necessarily imply that they were the far ahead of the Asians in textile export from Bengal as a whole because the above does not take into account Bengal’s textile export through overland routes which had always been extremely significant. It is generally assumed that with the breakdown of the three great Muslim empires – the Mughal, Persian and Ottoman – and the consequent decline of important ports like Surat, the traditional overland trade was doomed. The main reason for this sort of assumption, it seems, was mainly because of the paucity of material on traditional Asian/

114

SPINNING YARNS

Indian overland trade compared with the abundance of material in the Company archives on the European exports from Bengal. Fortunately we have been extremely lucky to get hold of a lot of data, both qualitative as well as quantitative (admittedly, not exhaustive), to show that the share of the Asian/Indian merchants in the textile exports from Bengal even in the mid-eighteenth century was in fact higher than of the Europeans. Now let us see what was the position of the Asian trade in Bengal textiles prior to the arrival of the European Companies on the scene, i.e. around the 1670s? The descriptive material found both in the English and Dutch archives leaves little doubt that the Asians/Indians carried on a thriving trade in Bengal textiles long before the advent of the Europeans. According to a Dutch report on Malda (one of the most important centres of textile production in Bengal), written by Henry Cansius in 1670, textiles worth Rs. 8 to 1 million were sold in the district for export to places like Pegu, Agra, Persia, etc. Cansius gives a detailed breakdown of the aurungs or production centres in the district and the value of the annual production for export of every aurung.5 Undoubtedly this is the nearest to quantitative evidence to be found in the Dutch sources on the export trade in textiles by the Asian merchants before the large scale participation by the Europeans in the textile export from Bengal. But there is no dearth of qualitative material on the textile export by the Asian/Indian merchants from Bengal the period before the European involvement in the said export trade. Such a report, which however contains some quantitative data too, on the textile export from Bengal was compiled by Richard Edwards in 1676 when he was sent to Malda before the establishment of the English factory there. According to this report, the ‘chief trade’ in the district was carried by the ‘factors of Agra, Gujarat and Benares merchants who yearly send them 15 to 35 pattelas (large flat-bottomed boat) whose lading consists of cossaes, muslins, mulmuls . . . mundils and elatches of all sorts, valued at [about] 1 lakh each patella and about half of that amount by landing said goods and raw silk.’6 In other words, the textile export by Asian merchants from Malda by riverine routes is estimated at Rs. 1.5 to 2.5 million and about Rs. 0.75 to 1.5 million by land (including silk in the latter case).7 Even assuming that the

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

115

value of the silk export (though silk was not an important product of Malda as compared to textiles) was half of the total value of the export by land routes (i.e. the share of silk and textiles being Rs. 0.375 to 0.625 million each), the value of the total export, combining the export by riverine and land routines stands at between Rs. 1.9 and 3.1 million. So the value of textile exports by the Asians/Indians merchants from Malda, according to Richard Edwards’ estimate, could have been around Rs. 2 to 3 million per year, which is no doubt higher than that of Henry Cansius. However, in the light of the two estimates, though it is difficult to arrive at rough figure, perhaps it will be safe to assume that the textile exports by Asian merchants from Malda alone could have been anything between Rs. 1 and 3 million in the 1670s. However, it has to be noted that Malda, though an important centre of textile production in Bengal, was certainly not the major one. The honour goes to areas around Kasimbazar, Dhaka and Hughli. In an account of textile production from Dhaka in 1747, the value of the amount exported was estimated at Rs. 2.85 million.8 Though Dhaka was known from the Roman times as the most important centre of the legendary muslins, it also produced large quantities of fine and coarse calicoes.9 Similar was the case with Kasimbazar which was famous for the manufacture of raw silk and silk and mixed piecegoods but also coarse textiles. This is borne out by the fact that even in the late 1740s and early 1750s, the Asian merchants exported silk textiles from Kasimbazar to the tune of Rs. 0.63 million a year on an average.10 Besides there were other centres of textile production in Bengal like Birbhum, Hughli, Burdwan, Jugdea, Santipur in Nadia and Radhanagar in Midnapore, etc. So it can be assumed that if the value of the textiles exported from Malda alone amounted to around Rs. 1 and 3 million in the 1670s, the total value of the exports from all the other centres of textile production noted above can be anybody’s guess. Again there is no definitive evidence to show that the traditional export of textiles from Bengal to some regions of India, Asia, and even North Africa was seriously affected by the ‘huge’ demand from European markets from around the 1680s or that Bengal met the ‘huge’ European demand by diverting the supplies to her traditional

116

SPINNING YARNS

markets. If that be so, it can be assumed that even in the late eighteenth or the first half of the eighteenth century, Bengal continued to supply her traditional markets while at the same time meeting the new European demand. This will be quite apparent from the presence of merchants from various parts of Asia in different aurungs of Bengal for procuring cloth side by side with the agents/dalals of the Companies. There are frequent references in the European records that their merchants/factors in Bengal had to face severe competition from the Asian/Indian merchants in the different centres of textile production in Bengal. The quantitative evidence that we have on the exports of textiles from Bengal by the Asian merchants, though not exhaustive, will bear out that the Asian merchants had a definite edge over the Europeans even in this sector of Bengal’s export trade. From John Taylor’s estimate of the Dhaka cloth export in 1747, it will be evident that the Asian share including that of the Armenians stood at two-third of the total, compared to the one-third of the Europeans including their private trade.11 Again, it is clearly indicated even in the Dutch sources, that the Asian merchants had a definite lead over their European rivals in the export trade of textiles from Bengal. According to the said Dutch records, the amount of advance given by the Asian merchants for procuring textiles (which was about 50 per cent around this time12) to the tune of Rs. 7.6 million by the Asians and Europeans excluding the Dutch, of which the English and French share could not have been more than Rs. 3 million.13 This seems quite plausible in view of the fact that from among several important centres of textile production centres on Bengal, the textile export by Asian merchants from only two centres (Malda and Dhaka for which we have some quantitative data), was quite substantial. Moreover the Dutch report refers to the month of June when most of the European Companies which procured their export commodities through the advance system had already contracted for their required to be supplied by their agents. Though the Asian merchants too bought their wares through dalals, it seems that they also collected a large amount of textiles from the spot markets in the same manner as they did buy most of their silk without giving out any advances. So even if we ignore the Dutch account which is used as corroborative evidence, our main hypothesis remains unaltered.

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

117

Moreover, according to the Danish account of the ‘Cloth Production and Trade’ in the late eighteenth-century Bengal, when the trade of the Asian merchants has declined considerably for reasons explained later, the total production of garras, one of the staple piece-goods of textile export from Bengal, was estimated at 4,00,000 pieces of which only 1,60,000 pieces were reported to have been exported to Europe annually.14 It is important to note here that areas like Hughli, Kasimbazar, Malda, Patna, etc., actually manufactured more medium and ordinary piece-goods (and these were the main staples of Bengal textile export) than Dhaka for export to different parts of Asia and Europe. This will be evident from the geographical distribution of piece-goods in the English Company’s orders for textiles from the Court of Directors in London in 1681-3 which is illustrated in Table 9.1. In fact, the Dutch Company exported more than 50 per cent of the total value of its textiles from the Hughli area (possibly including Balasore, Malda, Patna, etc., where piece-goods were procured through the dadni merchants of Calcutta), 25 to 38 per cent from Kasimbazar and 8 to 12 per cent from the Patna area while the share of Dhaka varied from 5 to 10 per cent in the mid-eighteenth century. This will be apparent from an analysis of Dutch textile exports for 1753/4 and TABLE 9.1: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PIECEGOODS IN

THE ENGLISH COMPANY’S ORDERS 16813

Area

Orders sent out Nov. 1681

Orders sent out Nov. 1682

Orders sent out Nov. 1683

Kasimbazar

84,100 pcs.

Hughli Balasore

23,500 pcs. 72,500 pcs.

Dacca

21,300 pcs.

Malda

27, 800 pcs.

2,22,600 pcs. + 20 bales 1,10,200 pcs. 1,62,000 pcs. + 16 bales 81,500 pcs. + 12 bales 86,500 pcs. + 20 bales

2,08,000 pcs. + 20 bales 1,58,300 pcs. 1,58,000 pcs. + 16 bales 71,500 pcs. + 12 bales 86,500 pcs. + 20 bales

Total

2,29,200 pcs.

6,62,800 pcs. + 68 bales

6,82,300 pcs. + 68 bales

Source: D.B. vols. 89 & 90.

118

SPINNING YARNS

1754/5 for which we can find the area-wise break down which is shown in Table 9.2. Be that as it may, we are lucky to find precise information regarding the export of silk piece-goods from Bengal, mainly from Kasimbazar, which was the most important production centre of silk textiles, by the Asian merchants in the early fifties of eighteenth century. The report was prepared in 1769 by W. Alderley who was then the commercial resident of Kasimbazar. According to this report, the total value of silk piece-goods exported by the Asians in the five years from 1749 to 1753 amounted to Rs. 0.63 million and Rs. 0.43 million from 1754 to 1758 on an average in a year. It may be noted in this context that, though Bengal produced fine quality silk fabrics, it was TABLE 9.2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, UNIT PRICE AND

SHARE OF DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE TOTAL VALUE

OF DUTCH TEXTILE EXPORT FROM BENGAL TO

HOLLAND, 17534 AND 17545

A. 1753-4 Place

No. of Pieces

Total Value ( florins)

Unit Price ( florins)

Share % in Total Value

Hughli Kasimbazar Dacca Patna

1,41,105 77,565 12,600 48,420

13,48,532 6,08,709 2,51,494 2,96,815

9.56 7.85 20.04 6.13

53.82 24.30 10.04 11.84

Total

2,79,800

25,05,550

100

Average Unit Price of Textiles: fl. 8.9. B. 1754-5 Place

No. of Pieces

Total Value ( florins)

Unit Price ( florins)

Share % in Total Value

Hughli Kasimbazar Dacca Patna

1,04,534 93,609 5,000 23,289

9,97,865 7,63,663 85,630 1,45,125

9.55 8.16 17.13 6.23

50.07 38.33 4.30 7.30

Total

2,26,432

19,92,283

100

Average Unit Price of Textiles: fl. 8. Source: Collected and Computed from Bengal Export Invoices in Dutch Records.

119

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

especially various types of cotton and silk mixed piece-goods which attracted the attention of both the European and Asian buyers. However, even in the export of silk piece-goods, the Asians had a decisive lead over the Europeans in the mid-eighteenth century which will be apparent from the comparative study of the volume (piece­ wise) of Asian and European exports of this category of textiles for 1750/1 to 1754/5, the five years for which such an analysis is possible (Table 9.3). Table 9.3, however, does not take into account the French export for lack of any precise data at the moment on the subject. But it can well be assumed the French share in the export of silk textiles from Bengal could not have been more than half of the English and Dutch export,15 i.e. between 12,000 and 15,000 pieces at the uppermost limit. Thus the average annual export of silk textiles would have been around 67,000 to 70,000 (the total of Dutch and the English being 54,889 and the French share being between 12,000 and 15,000 pcs.) pieces as in Table 9.3 above whereas the Asian export in silk textiles was more than 91,000 pieces. It should be mentioned here that silk textiles was perhaps not a staple variety in the Asian export from Bengal. It was in fact cotton piece-goods – ordinary, medium and TABLE 9.3: QUINQUENNIAL TOTAL AND AVERAGE OF

SILK TEXTILES EXPORTS: ASIAN MERCHANTS AND

EUROPEAN COMPANIES 1750/1 TO 1754/5

Years

Asians Pieces

European Companies

Dutch (Pcs.)

English (Pcs.)

European Total (Pcs.)

1750/1 1751/2 !752/3 1753/4 1754/5

124,675 92,475 89,978 74,978 75,062

12,890 39,628 27,777 29,029 40,883

12,760 20,041 32,615 24,663 34,160

25,650 59,669 60,392 53,692 75,043

Total

457,168

150,207

124,239

274,446

91,434

30,041

24,848

54,889

Average

Source: Asian Export, BPC, vol. 44, Consult. 19 June 1769; Dutch Export, collected and computed from Export Invoices in VOC records; English Export computed from data provided by K.N. Chaudhuri.

120

SPINNING YARNS

fine – which comprised bulk of the Asian exports to the Middle East and Central Asia. What is the exact picture that emerges from the above discourse on the position of the Asians in the textile export from Bengal? We have already seen that the total annual export from Malda was around Rs. 1 to 3 million. From Dhaka, while the total export was worth about Rs. 2.85 million, the Asian share including that of the Armenians, was around 2/3 of it, i.e. Rs. 1.8 million. The total value of export of silk textiles only (the value of the export of other varieties of textiles like coarse, cheap textiles are not included here) from Kasimbazar was between Rs. 0.50 and 0.65 million. If along with all this remember that the Asian merchants gave advances (the rate being around 50 per cent) to the tune of Rs. 4.5 to 5 million for procurement of textiles from the aurungs and the fact that they also bought cloth in the spot market, it can be easily assume that the annual total value of the Asian/Indian textile export from Bengal would have been in the range of Rs. 9 to 10 million. That this is not an overestimation can be established from other indirect evidences and assumptions. If the share percentage of the textiles exported by the Dutch and the English from Dhaka ranged between 5 and 10 per cent in the early 1750s (as pointed out earlier), the share of the Dhaka textiles in the Asian exports could be assumed to have been not more than 10 per cent. From the estimate of the textile exports from Dhaka in 1747, the value exclusively for Asian export to different areas can be compounded at Rs. 1.15 million.16 That means that the total value of the Asian textile export from Bengal could have been around Rs. 11.5 million per year in the mideighteenth century. As against this, the annual total value of the textiles exported by the Europeans Companies would not have been more than Rs. 5 to 6 million at the most. It is generally believed that that the European private trade was substantial though we do not have any definite idea about its size. But we have some data about the European private trade in one of the most important centres of textile manufacture in Bengal, namely, Dhaka which was only about 5 per cent of the total value of the total export from Dhaka.17 This indicates that perhaps the European private trade still constituted

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

121

only a small portion of Bengal’s export trade as a whole. However, it should be borne in mind that these are only rough estimates, subject to a wide margin of error. But still they give a clear indication of the comparative position of the Asian merchants and European Companies in Bengal’s textile export trade in the mid-eighteenth century. If, along with the above facts, we consider some other relevant evidence on the textile trade and production in Bengal, the picture becomes much clearer. It has been reported that in some particular years between 1738 and 1747, the production of cloth in Dhaka was estimated at around Rs. 4 million.18 In another estimate, towards the end of the eighteenth century, the total yearly production of cloth in Bengal for home consumption alone was given as Rs. 60 million.19 It seems reasonable to assume that it may well been the amount, if not more, locally consumed in the mid-eighteenth century, especially in the backdrop of the great famine of 1770 and the high mortality following it. Moreover, there is an abundance of qualitative evidence on the predominance of the Asian merchants in Bengal’s textile markets during the pre-Plassey era. For example, Harry Verelst, a responsible officer of the English Company, wrote, mainly referring to this period, that besides ‘the large investments of the European nations, the Bengal’s raw silk, cloths, etc., . . . were dispersed in the West and North inland as far as Guzzrat, Lahore and even Ispahan’.20 Again, two other officer of the Company, William Bolts and Luke Scrafton, emphasized how caravans consisting of ‘many thousands’ of merchants from various parts of India and Asia, resorted to Bengal for the ‘produce of the province’, of which the two most important ones, as is well known, were textiles and raw silk.21 Hence all the evidence cited above will indicate that the European export of Bengal’s textiles was only a small fraction of the total output and therefore should be placed in its proper perspective. NOTES 1. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World, p. 24, emphasis added. 2. Om Prakash, Dutch Company, pp. 240-2, 256. 3. Ibid., p. 242.

122

SPINNING YARNS

4. S. Arasaratnam, ‘Weavers, Merchants and Company’, IESHR, vol. XVII, no. 3, p. 162, emphasis added. 5. Report of Henry Cansius on Malda, 7 September 1670, VOC 1278, ff. 2173-4. 6. Fact. Records, Misc., vol. 14, ff. 334-6. 7. It is strange that Om Prakash makes a complete misreading of the document. As he writes: ‘The Edwards estimate is somewhat problematic in so far as it talks of 15 to 25 boats each carrying goods worth about Rs. 1,00,000, but at the same time seem to imply that only half of this value was accounted for by textiles and raw silk.’ See, Om Prakash ‘On Estimating the Employment Implications of European Trade for the Eighteenth Century’, MAS, May 1993, p. 395. It is absolutely clear from the report of Richard Edwards that he first talks of textile export (even specifying the types of textiles as cossaes, muslins, etc.) by riverine routes (and hence says patellas and then by land (‘landing’ is nothing but by land) as opposed to export by rivers. 8. Home Misc. 456F, ff. 93-5. 9. Ibid., f. 175. 10. W. Aldersey’s Report, BPC, Range 1, vol. 44, Consult. 19 June 1769. 11. Home Misc. 456F, ff. 93-5. 12. C&B. Abstract, vol. 2, f. 319, para. 55, 31 January 1722. 13. Taillefert’s ‘Memorie’, VOC, 2849, 27 October 1755, ff. 188vo-180. Tallefert talks of Rs. 6 million sent to textile aurungs for some years but mentions categorically to the June resolution of 1741 where it referred to Rs. 7.6 million as the amount given by various buyers other than the Dutch. We accept the latter sum as the amount of advance given to the weavers in normal years because first, it was mentioned in the official Resolution; second, Taillefert, in all probability, spoke of (while mentioning Rs. 6 million given as advance) the late 1740s and early 1750s when the textile trade and industry was disrupted to some extent as a result of the Maratha invasions. The official Resolution of 1741, on the other hand, referred to the period prior to the Maratha incursions when things were normal and trade and industry flourished as usual. However, it may be noted that both the figures (Rs. 7.6 million and Rs. 6 million) were mere guesses but not entirely incorrect, given the diffusion of the industry in Bengal and the presence of numerous buyers in the Bengal textile markets. 14. Ole Feldebeck, ‘Cloth Production and Trade in Late Eighteenth Century Bengal’, BPP, June-December 1967, pp. 127-9. 15. Peter Marshall also estimated from the account of Martineau that the French Company’s purchases ‘may have been half of those of the Dutch and the English’, P. J. Marshall, Bengal: the British Bridgehead, p. 66. 16. Leaving aside the amount sent to the Mughal emperor at Delhi, the breakdown is as follows: Upper Provinces: Rs. 1,00,000; Pathans:

A S I A N M E RC H A N T S A N D T E X T I L E E X P O RT

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

123

Rs. 1,50,000; Mughals for foreign consumption: Rs. 4,00,000; Armenians to Basra, Mocha and Jedda: Rs. 5,00,000. John Taylor’s Report, Home Misc. 456F, ff. 91-5. Proceedings of the Board of Trade, vol. 156, quoted in N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. III, p. 4. H.T. Colebrooke, Remarks on the Husbandry and Agriculture of Bengal, pp. 170-1, 174. Verelst to Court of Directors, 2 April 1769, BPC, vol. 44, f. 324, para. 6. William Bolts, Considerations, p. 200; Luke Scrafton, Reflections, p. 20.

CHAPTER 10

How ‘Poor’ were the ‘Poor’ Indian Weavers?

T

here is hardly any doubt that the Indian textile industry,

especially Bengal textile industry, was quite prosperous in the pre-colonial era, so much so that it has been said that India (mainly Bengal) clothed the world during the period under review.1 The prop of the industry was mainly the weavers and the spinners, besides other artisans like the washermen, nardias, rafugars, tailors, etc. With the expertise and excellence of their work learnt from generation to generation, these weavers and craftsmen made the most beautiful as well as cheapest fabrics in the world which earned accolades from the contemporary Western and Eastern observers. But un­ fortunately this species has almost vanished now. As such, it is imperative to have a close look at their position, especially their economic condition, in the early modern era in the backdrop of the observations of contemporary, mostly Western, observers that the weavers in India were in general ‘very poor’. Was it really true? Let us see how ‘poor’ really was the ‘poor’ Indian weavers! WEAVERS’ POSITION IN THE SOCIETY

It is a difficult task to locate the social and economic position of the

weavers in the society in the first half of the eighteenth century. At

the same time one is reminded of the assertion of a distinguished

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

125

authority on the subject that the weavers formed ‘the hinge of Bengal’s economy’ which is perhaps not far from the truth. Given the fact that Bengal trade and industry was perhaps at the zenith of its prosperity during the period under review and Bengal textile was the most important item in the export commodities of the European as well as the Asian merchants, bringing in their trail bullion into the country, there can be little doubt that the weavers and other artisans played an important role in the society and economy. Traditionally a caste-based and hereditary occupation as weaving was, it is difficult to ascertain from the meagre evidence available whether the expanding demand as a result of the demand for the European markets, broke down the caste barriers and brought in others from higher or lower strata of the caste hierarchy into the organization of production. However, the general assumption is that as the demand for textiles expanded, additional labour was brought into the industry to increase the output and as such weaving was no more confined to any particular caste any more.2 The only evidence that we have on the question is that of the late eighteenth century but it contradicts what we said just now. H.T. Colebrooke wrote in the 1790s that the view that ‘professions [weaving?] was confined to hereditary descent’ was ‘unfounded’ and held that ‘professions are nor separated by an impassable line’ or that ‘every profession, with few exceptions, is open to every description of persons’.3 On the other hand, the Danish Report (1789) of the Bengal textile industry in the late eighteenth century states categorically that ‘a weaver cannot become a member of another caste’.4 As such, it is difficult to suggest anything definitive on the caste mobility in the textile industry. Yet it is significant to note in this connection that what Robert Orme observed in 1750s:5 ‘A weaver amongst the Gentoos is not a despicable caste. He is next to the scribe, and above all the mechanics. He would lose his cast[e], were he to undertake a drudgery which did not immediately relate to his work.’ If that were so, and weaving could be carried on side by side with cultivation, and above all, as the small-scale family-based unit of production does not seem to have been ‘displaced from its position of primacy’, weaving in general remained in all probability primarily a caste-based hereditary occupation in the mid-eighteenth century.

126

SPINNING YARNS

At the same time, the peasant-cultivators who belonged to most of the castes might have been drawn into the industry as and when the situation demanded. But unfortunately we do not have any evidence to determine the proportion of such extra labour drawn from agrarian and other groups to the main weaver castes engaged in weaving. The fact that spinning was not confined to any caste group and even high caste women participated in this commodity-production only lends support to the hypothesis that labour from other occupations could be easily drawn to weaving if and when necessary. Moreover, though most of the occupations were mainly caste-based, in all probability the system was not extremely rigid. The most remarkable instance of upward economic mobility is that of the dadni merchants in Calcutta in the first half of the eighteenth century, especially the Setts and Basaks, who belonged to the weaving caste. In Kasimbazar, as in Calcutta, the dadni merchants included such names as Pramanick (barber), Nath (weaving caste), Teli (oil presser), etc., along with such high castes like Sen (Vaidya), Basu (Kayastha), etc. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether these were exceptions rather than the rule. As to the weavers’ corporate organizations which, according to some scholars who even talk of ‘weavers’ guilds’, existed in the early eighteenth century also, our sources maintain conspicuous silence,6 while we hear so much of the merchants’ panchayats (corporate body) during the period. Even if such bodies existed, these were probably caste-based associations in urban areas and their functions were not primarily economic. This is perhaps because of the fact that handloom industry was still basically a rural cottage industry in Bengal. MOBILITY OF THE WEAVERS

In order to assess the economic condition of the weavers, it is necessary to see how far they were mobile so that in case of an adverse situation they could easily run away from their village. As our evidence from Bengal indicates, they were extremely reluctant throughout the period under review to move from their habitual place of residence despite even economic inducement offered by the Companies or other customers.7 In the 1670s the English Company tried to persuade

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

127

some weavers from Kasimbazar to go to Madras (then Fort St. George) and offered them handsome financial inducement if they agreed to, but they refused to do so as they were scared of crossing the kala pani (the sea). However, it is noticeable at the same time that the weavers, whenever faced with extortions, oppressions, wars or aggressions, or in order to escape from their creditors, often ran away from their villages. The use of force or compulsion was ineffective. As Robert Orme, the official historian of the English Company, pointed out: ‘If guards were placed upon the [weaving] village which is the only method of compulsion that can be used, the alarm would be taken; and half of the country, by the retreat of these people [presumably the weavers], would be depopulated in a day’s time.’8 That the desertion of weavers from their villages was not uncommon is abundantly clear from the records of the Companies.9 For example, it was reported by the chief of the English Factory at Jugdea in his letter to the Fort William (Calcutta) Council in 1751 that the some of their weavers and washermen had fled the village ‘for dread of the nawab’s extortions’.10 Again, Thomas Hyndman who was sent to Chandpur to procure khasas reported to Dhaka in 1754 that many of the weavers there had left their houses to escape their indebtedness to the dalals and paikars who ‘have thrown more into their hands than they are able to account for’.11 Such instances of the weavers deserting their villages in the face of official oppressions or pressures from merchants/dalals, etc., to whom they were indebted abound in the Company records. But these instances notwithstanding, the general impression one gets from the contemporary records is that there was not much geographical mobility among the Bengal weavers, perhaps the reason being that the textile industry in Bengal remained chiefly a caste-based domestic rural industry. It was only in the 1750s that the English Company was able to lure some weavers to settle within the bounds of the Company’s establishment at Fort William but that too only on a very limited scale.12 In this respect it seems that the Bengal weavers were less mobile than their south Indian/Coromandel counterparts as has been indicated by Arasaratnam and Ramaswamy.13 In contradistinction to the picture in Bengal, the scenario in the south was completely different. It has been stressed by Arasaratnam

128

SPINNING YARNS

quite some time back that the Coromandel weavers were very mobile even in the seventeenth century.14 In their recent works, both Ramaswami and Parthasarathi have emphasized that the weavers in medieval south India were extremely mobile. It has been said that the ‘reputation of easy mobility’ of the weavers in the south was because of the fact that they ‘led simple life and had few possessions’. Their food was also very simple, mostly millets and occasionally rice.15 Parthasarathi demonstrates that in several parts of south India peasants (and obviously some of whom were weavers too) travelled from village to village during the summer months because they knew that political and revenue officials would bid for their services by offering lucrative terms.16 BARGAINING POWER

There is hardly any doubt that weavers in Bengal (as also in other parts of India, especially in the south) enjoyed quite a strong bargaining power vis-à-vis the customers, whether dadni merchants or the Company servants or even the Asian traders. In general the weavers entered into contract with the buyers to supply cloth at a given time and according to specifications after receiving an advance which was called dadni in Bengal. But the important thing to remember is that this advance did not in any way undermine the weaver’s strong position while bargaining. Again, the advance should not be misconstrued as essential to help the weavers as they were too poor to buy the raw material as also for their subsistence. Besides, though many of the weavers had enough resources to finance the production of cloth, by taking advance he would be able to share some of the risks – like shortage and rise in prices of yarn and grain – with the merchants or those who gave the advance for cloth. That the weavers were in an advantageous position is clear from the fact that the weavers could cancel the contract with the buyers/merchants while the latter were not in a position to do that. Again, the weavers could often use cheaper and inferior thread when he realized that the contracted price was not enough to leave adequate profit for him. If the buyer/merchant objected to receive low quality cloth, the weaver would return the advance and sell his product to other buyers of whom there was no

PLATE 1: SPINNING FINE YARN

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 2: WARPING SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 3: REELING YARN FROM A REED SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 4: APPLYING THE REED TO THE WARP SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 5: WEAVING SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 6: FORMING THE HEDDLES

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 7: STEAMING CLOTHS DURING THE PROCESS OF BLEACHING SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

PLATE 8: ARRANGING DISPLACED THREADS IN CLOTH SOURCE: AUTHOR’S PERSONAL COLLECTION

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

129

dearth during the period under consideration. All this will bear out the fact that the weavers in Bengal as also in the South (and most likely in the north or western parts of India as well) had lot of freedom in their dealings with the merchants/buyers. Now let us see how the above is documented in the records of the period. Though the Bengal weavers did not lack ingenuity, as attested even by the Court of Directors in London,17 they would not take up any work involving changes in the pattern, size, etc., without the inducement of a higher price. In 1739 the Fort William Council found the cloths sent from Balasore were much ‘worse and dearer than those in the previous years’. When asked to explain the reason, the Balasore factors replied that ‘the cloth being one covid and half increased in length occasions the dearness’ and that the weavers told them that ‘they cannot make it cheaper or better at the price and say that they will not receive the dadney for this year’s investment’.18 The same was the experience of the Kasimbazar officials. They wrote in 1744 that they could not undertake the investment of lungee romals because the ‘the weavers were formerly beat down in the price so much that they could not go on with them and had turned their hands to making other sorts of romals that yielded more profit’.19 Similarly, the Company found it difficult in the same year to contract for dosooties because the merchants told them that the weavers were reluctant to produce these piece-goods as they took more time than making garras and ‘yielded them less profit’.20 So it is quite clear from the evidence cited above that the Bengal weavers were not at all ignorant of the situation in the market and whenever the opportunity came they took full advantage of it. Again, despite the fact that the weaver had taken dadni (advance) from several parties, he was not completely tied down and he had some freedom of selling his goods to whomsoever he wished. What he would do occasionally was to produce cloth which did not conform to the samples given, and if it was rejected by the merchants or dalals from whom he had taken advance, he was free to sell the rejected goods to other buyers in the market. This is amply borne out in the records of the Company. For example, the dadni merchants reported to the English Council in 1727 that despite advances given by their gomastas, the demand at all aurungs was so high that they were apprehensive

130

SPINNING YARNS

‘the weavers would make it late before they could be able to give their goods [since] they had taken money of the Dutch, French and other people so that the prices were not only risen but the goods as soon as they were made were immediately divided, some to one nation and some to another’.21 Such instances abound in the Company records. That the Bengal weavers were not completely ignorant of the market and the prices of different types of textiles, and that they were absolutely free to accept or reject any contract is evident from the fact that when they found the prices offered were not lucrative enough, they would not hesitate to refuse to take such orders. For instance, Thomas Hyndman, the chief of the Chandpur factory, wrote in 1754 that the weavers there assured him that ‘the rate at which the piecegoods were priced by the Company did not afford them a sustenance’ and hence they declined to enter into any contract. As such, he had great difficulty in procuring a small amount of cloth and was himself convinced that ‘there was some truth in the complaint of the weavers’.22 The state of things in Dhaka in the pre-Plassey period is best described by John Bebb, the Commercial Resident there in 1789:23 ‘The manufaturer in treating for the sale of his material and labour could say “you do not offer me the price sufficient therefore I will not sell this assorment to you” and the purchaser was in a position to say “you demand too much therefore I will not buy of you unless you will be more reasonable”.’ There is little doubt that whatever was true of Dhaka was true for the rest of Bengal. The assertion that weavers in the pre-Colonial period used to manufacture their goods freely and ‘without oppression, retrictions, limitations and prohibitions’ is more or less a correct assessment of the situation in the pre-Plassey days.24 In fact, Verelst and other responsible officers of the Company bear out the above when they referred to the ‘diffusion of commerce’, ‘general opulence’, ‘readiness of sales’, and encouragement given to the artisans before the Britsh occupation of Bengal. WEAVERS’/ARTISANS’ EARNINGS

The information we have about the wages or earnings of weavers and other artisans connected with textile industry is very meagre. The

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

131

only evidence that we come across is that in 1736 the Dhaka factors of the English Company reported that the women spinners and ‘men that served weavers’ were paid ‘a pun [one pun of cauris]25 and their rice’.26 The price of rice, as reported by the Dhaka factors in 1738, was 2 maunds 20 seers to 3 maunds for a rupee. But this figure is very suspect inasmuch as the Dhaka factors when asked to explain why they paid high prices for piece-goods, their answer was that it was because of the rise in the prices of rice. Thus it is clear that they had an ulterior motive to inflate the price of rice27 and as such it is not prudent to find out from this money-wise wages of the spinners and weaver-helpers because that might result in an inaccurate estimation. However, assuming that the artisans received 2 seers of rice per day, the money value of the rice part would be 48 puns of cauris and his money wage 30 puns a month, making the artisan’s total wage for a month at 78 puns or Rs. 1.31/2 annas. This tallies more or less with the estimate of John Taylor who had stated that around the mideighteenth century the earning of an ordinary weaver was from Re. 1 to 1.5.28 A significant fact that emerges from the above is that the spinners working full-time earned as much as the helper-weaver or ordinary weaver. Though there are various estimates of the earnings of the weavers, spinners, washermen in the eighteenth century, the most authoritative one is no doubt that of John Taylor who was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka in the late 1790s. According to him, the net profit by weaving a mulboos khas (royal clothing – one of the finest textiles) at Sonargaon in Dhaka district which took about six months for three persons – the head weaver who bought the thread, the weaver who made the cloth and the journeyman who helped the weaver – amounted to Rs. 47 (it was actually Rs. 41 but the weavers using inferior quality of thread could raise it to Rs. 47). We are told that the weaver and the journeymen were employed by the head weaver at a monthly wage of Rs. 3 to 3.5 and Rs. 1.5 to 1.75 respectively. It is to be noted here that Taylor was careful to state categorically that ‘this profit was less than what the weavers are understood to make by [weaving] several other high priced assortments of this province’.29 But one has to remember that these were the earnings of artisans engaged in production of high quality cloth and hence should not be taken as the average income of the artisans. Perhaps that is why

132

SPINNING YARNS

Taylor made it clear that the earning of the weavers, presumably not of high quality fabric, was about Rs. 2.5 to 3.5 and that of his assistant from Rs. 1 to 2.30 It is evident from the above that though the maximum rate in the two estimates of Taylor are almost the same, the minimum rate differs quite a bit, suggesting probably that the earning of ordinary artisans even in Dhaka were lower than that of those who possessed higher skills. There is a problem with Taylor’s report inasmuch as it does not indicate the precise status of the head weaver in the production organization of the textile industry. If the head weaver had to give away, as the said report indicates, Rs 19.50 in wages for 6 months to the weaver and Rs. 9.60 to the journeyman (at the medium rate of Rs. 3.25 and 1.60 respectively), making a total of Rs. 29.10 out of his total profit of Rs. 47, his own share for working for 6 months comes to around Rs. 17.90. That means that his monthly income in making the mulboos khas comes to about Rs. 3 per month which is undoubtedly lower than the wage of the skilled weaver. So the question that arises is who the head weaver actually was? Was the weaverentrepreneur himself employing several workers for production purposes, or a rich peasant-farmer engaging weavers and journeymen to make cloth for the market or just a merchant entering into production-organization in a limited way? It is rather difficult to give a straightforward answer, especially in the absence of sufficient data on the subject. Yet it can be reasonably assumed on the basis of some evidence that the head weaver was the head of the weaving community of the village, and he himself employed some weavers and helpers to work for him so that he can afford to have a profit which is lower than that of the weaver. But as he has employed several weavers, and not just one or two, his total earnings from the whole endeavour would have been quite handsome though it is difficult to quantify this for lack of information. However, we are fortunate enough to have a detailed account of the earnings of the garra (a coarse and cheap cotton) weavers in Birbhum district of Bengal from a Danish account written around 1789. It is worth quoting here the relevant portion of the text:31 The weavers’ wages differ according to whether the demand for cloth in the

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

133

aurungs is great or small; during the weaver’s bad season – December, January, February – his pay for one piece of gurrah is generally not more than 10 annas; normally it is 11 to 12 annas and sometimes slightly more; if the weaver is an able worker he might finish his piece in five and a half or six days; but when his feast days are deducted he is able at most to produce four and a half to five pieces per month, by which he is generally estimated to earn three sicca rupees and – when times are best – three and a half rupees at most; if his family is able to help him, especially with cleaning and spinning the cotton, this is estimated at one fourth of his earning, but no more. Three to four rupees per month are thus the best weaver’s highest earnings if he is fully employed.

So it is evident that the weaver’s earnings depended on several factors such as the time of the year, the demand in the market at the given time, help from the family if any, and above all his own diligence, etc. In 1787, John Bebb, an official of the Company, gave the following estimate of the earnings of the weavers of Golaghar manufacturing soot romals, a higher quality cloth than garras:32 The earning of an ‘indifferent’ weaver per month The earning of a ‘middling’ weaver per month The earning of a ’good’ weaver per month

Rs. 3.00 Rs. 5.00 Rs. 7.50

This seems to be an overestimation because though the weavers producing soot romals were more skilled than the garra weavers, they were hardly as skilled as the weavers of Sonargaon who excelled in producing muslins. So if the latter earned only as much as Rs. 3.50 at the most, as estimated by John Taylor towards the end of the eighteenth century, it is too much to expect the Golaghar weavers manufacturing soot romals earned Rs. 5 on an average. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that all these weavers had to buy yarn for making the cloth and as such the price of yarn might have been responsible for the wide fluctuation in the earnings of the weavers. So it seems probable that as the weaver himself bought the thread for weaving, any bad harvest and consequent rise in the price of yarn would invariably result in a sharp rise in the weaver’s earning, which is well reflected in the report of the costs of khasas and baftas in Burron, one of the well-known centres of cloth production in Dhaka district.

4.0.9 3.8.0

2.0.0

8.0.0 2.5.2

2.14.0

12.13. 0 3.5.9

Yarn cost

6.1.6 5.3.6

Total cost

4.13.0 1.0.9

0.14.0

2.1.6 1.11.6

Weavers’ profit

1788

31 37

34

34 35

Profit as % share of cost

12.13.0 3.5.9

2.14.0

6.1.6 5.3.6

Total cost

Source and Note: Home Misc., vol. 393, ff. 261-2; 1 rup. = 16 annas; 1 anna = 12 pie.

Khasa Burron (40 × 2) Khasa Kumarkhali (40 × 2) Khasa Kumarkhali (37 × 17/8) Khas French (40 × 21/4) Baftas fine

Type of cloth

9.0.0 2.14.0

2.10.0

4.12.0 4.4.0

Yarn cost

3.13.0 0.7.9

0.4.0

1.5.6 0.15.6

Weavers’ profit

1789

10 10

19

17 22

Profit as % share of cost

TABLE 10.1: MANUFACTURING COSTS OF KHASAS AND BAFTAS IN BURRON, 1788 & 1789 COST IN RS., ANNA, PIE; CLOTH MEASURED IN COVID

-1.0.0 -0.9.0

-0.10.0

-0.12.0 -0.12.0

Decrease in profit from 1788

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

135

It is evident from Table 10.1 that in a normal year the profit or share percentage of the weaver in the total cost of manufacturing khasa or bafta varied between 31 and 37. But this could go down even to as low as 10 per cent if the price of cotton yarn went up sharply. It is important to note here that the factors of the Company who prepared the said estimate admitted frankly that ‘the profit of the weaver . . . for the last year [1788] did not appear more than was actually necessary to afford an ordinary subsistence.’33 At the same time, it is significant that, as the table shows clearly, the earning of a weaver for weaving a coarse cloth like bafta is more than the finer varieties like khasa. This is perhaps because of the fact that when the price of yarn rose sharply, as in 1789, it affected more the price of the finer yarn used for making fine piece-good like khasa than that of the coarse thread with which coarse cloth like bafta was made. The Danish Report on the Bengal textile industry in 1789 also confirms that the earning of a weaver in the 1780s was around 30 to 40 per cent of the total manufacturing cost of most textiles is also corroborated by the Danish account which is given in Table 10.2. But it should be remembered that the share percentage of the weaver’s profit depended also on the type of cloth and the technique used by him. This will be apparent from the following estimate of the Production Cost of Taffetas shown in Table 10.3 made by the English Company’s factors at Kasimbazar in 1756. Be that as it may, it would be interesting to see what the situation in south India was. It has been demonstrated recently that the earnings of the weavers in south India were higher than that of their counterparts TABLE: 10.2: COST OF GARRA PRODUCTION AND

WEAVER’S EARNINGS, BIRBHUM, 1787 IN RS.

Textile type

Garra

Total cost

Yarn cost

Washing cost

Weaver’s profit

Profit as percentage share of cost

95 (for 20 pieces)

55

2

38

40

Source: Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal, BPP, vol. LXXXVI, pp. 128, 130.

6.10 6.10 6.10

Cost of Silk

0.4.6 0.4.6 0.4.6

Winding cost

0.4.0 0.4.0 0.4.0

Twisting cost

0.2.0 0.2.0 0.2.0

Patash & straw

0.10.6 0.10.6 0.10.6

Blue & other agent 3.12.6 0.11.6

Other dyes

0.1.0 0.1.0 0.1.0

Tying broken threads 1.4.0 1.4.0 1.4.0

Weaving

Sources: Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 12, 15 January 1756; BPC, vol. 28, f. 386, 26 January 1756.

Pucca Green Pale Green Blue

Taffeta

TABLE 10.3: PRODUCTION COST OF TAFFETAS IN KASIMBAZAR, 1756

13.0.6 9.15.0 9.4.0

Total cost

9.0.0 12.5 13.5

Weaver’s share in % of total cost

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

137

in England. It has been suggested that the south Indian labourers (in agriculture, weaving and spinning) ‘had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the eighteenth century and lived lives of greater financial security’.34 By calculating the real wage of the weavers in Britain and south India, Parthasarathi35 asserted that the south Indian weavers earned more than their peers in Britain. Contrary to received wisdom, he opines that the south Indian weaver was not impoverished. He emphasized that the weekly earnings of the British weaver could buy 40 to 140 pounds of grain while in the case of a south Indian weaver it was around 65 to 160 pounds. He holds that an average south Indian weaver’s wages were higher than those of a weaver in rural and small town Britain, and comparable to that of a London weaver. He asserts that the highest incomes of south Indian weavers were certainly not below those of Britain. But in this context, it has to be taken into consideration that these wages were calculated on the assumption that weavers, both in south India and Britain, were fully employed. However the fact of the matter was that while in south India the weavers were fully employed in the backdrop of the huge demand for textiles, in Britain it was not the case. There is considerable evidence in the sources to affirm that the weavers there had often faced the problem of not finding adequate work throughout the year.36 When it comes to wages of spinners, Parthasarathi points out that while the British spinners earned about 4d to 2s, their peers in south India received almost the same amount, which was precisely 7d to 2s. Though it may seem that the spinners’ wages in both the countries are almost similar, he holds that it is reasonable to believe that spinners’ income in south India was higher than that of the British.37 The assertion that south Indian labourers (including the whole of India as such) were impoverished and were ‘too poor’ is not really based on any authentic sources but from European travellers who were often biased, had little understanding of the complexity of the society and culture in India as also ‘their linguistic incompetence and latent ideas of European superiority’. Notions such as ‘Oriental despotism’ pre­ vailed so much in contemporary Europe it was a prominent trend in European thinking on India. Take for instance the case of Francois Bernier, the famous French traveller to India who depicted despotism

138

SPINNING YARNS

in India in the mid-sixteenth century as ‘as a tyranny often so excessive to deprive the peasant and artisan of the necessaries of life, and leave them to die of misery and exhaustion’.38 But hardly that is a valid description of the Mughal rule in India as has been demonstrated by many a reputed scholar on the subject. The weaver/artisan had several advantages over their counterparts in Britain. He enjoyed the privilege to work at his home without any supervision by the merchant-financiers. He worked as an independent craftsman. In his contract, often verbal, he was paid an advance, generally at the rate of 50 per cent of the total value of contract but he was free to cancel the agreement and sell his wares to anyone who paid him a better price. Again everywhere in India, not only in Bengal and south India only, the weaver/artisan had a strong say in pricing the goods at the time of the contract. Moreover while the weaver in Britain had to often face scarcity of jobs, in India almost everywhere the weaver/artisan had no such problem because of the great demand for Indian textiles all over the world. Again, there was legacy in Britain of state interference in the labour market in support of the employer interest. Besides all this, the weaver/artisan everywhere in India worked as a collective body which was not the case in Britain and as such the former could bargain with the merchant-financiers more effectively in India than in Britain. In the case of Bengal, as we have seen earlier, the weaver earned on an average around Rs. 3.50 per month. However, no such com­ parison between the wages earned by weavers in Bengal and those of the weavers in south India is possible for paucity of material at the moment. But it is possible to have only a rough idea of the income of other artisans connected with the textile production in Bengal in the early modern era. Of these artisans, the most important were the spinners who were drawn from all sections of the society, especially in the weaving and peasant households, irrespective of caste or creed, and mostly working in the off-time from the daily errands. Of course, there is also ample evidence in the sources which indicate that most of the best spinners used to work full-time and kept helpers to do the daily chores. In all probability, as was the case in the late eighteenth century, the finest thread was spun by women, and for that matter of fact, women from high caste including Brahmin families who

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

139

worked full-time.39 If that be so, the situation in south India was completely different. It has been asserted that though ‘all women in the dry areas spun yarn, the notable exceptions were women from household of the Brahmins and a few high castes’. And it has also been emphasized that the best spinners in south India were women from ‘untouchable’ households.40 According to John Taylor’s estimate, towards the end of the eighteenth century, the best spinners of Dhaka could earn around 12 to 15 annas per month, working about three hours a day.41 However, in an estimate of 1790, a highly skilful and industrious woman is said to have earned about Rs. 3 per month.42 It seems that in this case the women spinners were working whole-time. There is ample evidence that such skilful spinners were in great demand and received advances from weavers even in the late eighteenth century.43 If that be so, it can reasonably be argued that spinners of the same category as above would have earned at least the same amount, if not more, in the first half of the eighteenth century when there was a great demand for such fine threads which were essential for manufacture of muslins and fine calicoes. At the same time, it should be noted that the income of the spinners depended mainly on their skill and the type of thread they spun. It has been estimated that they earned about Rs. 2 per month when they spun yarn used for medium and fine muslin while those who spun thread for coarser cloths earned only 12 to 14 annas per month, working presumably full-time towards the end of the eighteenth century.44 However, W. Ward estimated that ‘in Bengal proper, the mistress of (the) house earned as much as from four to seven shillings a week by spinning’.45 Converting this at the then prevalent rate of 2.5 shillings for a rupee, the income of the spinners comes to around Rs. 1.60 to 2.75. H.R. Ghosal’s observation that ‘there were certainly many women who earned a great deal by spinning’ will conform to the popular proverb in Bengal prevalent for a long time which goes like this: Charka aamar swami put Charka amar nati Charkar daulate amar Duare bandha hati

140

SPINNING YARNS

The spinning wheel is as dear to me

As my husband, son or grandson.

It is due to the spinning wheel that

I can afford to have an elephant in chains at my door.

Regarding the wages of the washermen, the only evidence we have is from the Danish report on ‘Cloth Production in Bengal, 1789’, according to which a washerman can earn only Rs. 2 for washing 20 pieces of garras.46 Other artisans like the kashida workers, rafugars, etc., worked mainly on contract basis, and as such we don’t have any precise idea about their earnings. Now let us see what the scenario was in south India. It has been said that the weavers of ordinary cloth there earned about Rs. 2d (pence) a day, i.e. Rs. 2.50 a month, while the spinners about 1 to 1.25d a day, making it Rs. 1.25 to 2 per month.47 This tallies more or less with the estimate of Methwold (1621-2) who stated that the income of an ordinary artisan was about 3d a day which works out to be Rs. 3 per month. Even in the 1790s a weaver in Vishakhapatnam is said to have earned around Rs. 4 per month while in Cuddalore the earning of the weaver was around Rs. 3.50 to 5.25 per month. However, Buchanan (1807) estimated that at the turn of the nineteenth century the weaver of fine cloth earned as much as 8d a day which is around Rs. 6.60 a month while the ordinary weaver could make only 2d a day or Rs. 2.50 per month.48 In contrast, as Parthasarathi asserts, the small town and rural weavers earned 7s. to 9s. a week. But this was not the net income of the weavers – it included the working expenses like the wages of the weaver’s assistants, cost of candles, the rental for the looms, etc., making it difficult for estimating the earning of the weavers only. But here again one has to consider the fact that compared to the Indian weavers who had the desired employment because of a huge and regular demand for their product, their British counterparts faced great difficulties in finding enough work.49 That would no doubt reduce the annual income of the latter. Parthasarathi argues that the spinners in south India received from 7d to 2s, while their counterparts in Britain earned only 4d to 2s, though possibly the south Indian spinners’ income was much higher inasmuch as the wage for British spinners quoted are of those from western England where generally the finest thread was spun. But in

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

141

the case of south India, it was not the case – it did not indicate the wages for spinning the finest thread.50 As we have already shown earlier that the best spinners in Dhaka earned at least around Rs. 3 per month51 which will clearly indicate that the Indian spinners earned more than their counterparts in Britain? ALLEGED POVERTY OF WEAVERS Received Wisdom

It appears from the above analysis that the earning of the weavers or spinners in India, especially in Bengal, was not very low compared to the position in Britain. Yet the documentation in contemporary official records refer persistently, as they did for the second half of the seventeenth, to the alleged poverty of weavers in the first half of the eighteenth century. When one goes through the records of the Company one comes across such remarks as ‘weavers live from hand to mouth’, ‘such needy a generation as the weavers are’, ‘weavers are too poor to be trusted with [advance] money’, ‘none of the weavers worth any money’ or ‘the poverty of the weavers obliges the gomastah to be very careful in the advance of money’, etc.52 In this context it may be pointed out that most of the said comments were made by the factors or gomastas of the Companies while trying to justify the high prices they paid for the export commodities. It is true, however, that even the Company officials occasionally referred to the poverty of weavers. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this alleged poverty of the weavers in the backdrop of the high demand for textiles, the competition among the European and Asian buyers in the market and the bargaining power of the weavers which we have referred to earlier. At this point it will be pertinent to examine the evidence found in contemporary English literature and other documents which seem to be responsible for emphasizing the poverty of the Indian weavers. In the background of all this there has been a furious debate as to the craze for Indian fabrics in the U.K. and the resultant drain of precious metals from the country. Most of the writers sought to explain the reason for the cheapness of Indian cloth and attributed it to India’s competitive advantage of the low wages paid to its artisans.

142

SPINNING YARNS

This, they ascribed to the oppressive and exploitative conditions of Indian labour which is well reflected in Daniel Defoe’s work where he writes:53 . . . the People [in India] who make all these Fine Works are to the last Degree miserable, their Labour of no Value, their Wages would fright us to talk of it, and their way of Living raise a Horror in us to think of it. . . . Men perish and sink under the Weight of their Labour, because the food they eat is not of sufficient Nourishment to support them, and the Wages they get cannot provide better Food for them; yet their rigorous Task-masters lash them forward as we (cruelly too) sometimes do to our Horses.

Not only that, as Parthasarathy pointed out, an M.P., John Basset, speaking in the Parliament, stated that ‘people in India are such slaves as to work for less than a penny a day, whereas ours here will not work under a shilling’.54 Even the foreign travellers often refer to the oppression the weavers suffered and the low wages they were paid. Francisco Pelsaert, the Dutch traveller wrote that:55 for the workman there are two scourges, the first of which is low wages. . . . The second is [the oppression of ] the Governor, the nobles, [etc.]. If any of these wants a workman, the man is not asked if he is willing to come, but is seized in the house or in the street, well beaten if he should dare to raise any objection, and in the evening paid half of his wages, or nothing at all.

Again the notion prevalent in the then Europe was that India was ruled by despots who appropriated most of the earnings of the state to themselves, and thus reducing most of the subject people to a meagre level of subsistence. And in this way, the oriental despotism is associated with low wages and a degraded status for labourers. For instance, the following is what the French Traveller, Francois Bernier, had to say about despotism in India: ‘. . . a tyranny often so excessive as to deprive the peasant and the artisan of the necessaries of life, and leave them to die of misery and exhaustion.’56 But it has been well established now that the above assertions are hardly acceptable in the face of latest research available now. On most occasions, the observations of the foreign traveller were very much biased because of their lack of knowledge about the Indian conditions. But what was the actual condition of the weaver community in India in the early part of the modern era? K.N. Chaudhuri, the

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

143

distinguished historian of Indian textile industry, states that the textile industry in India was characterized by ‘surplus labour leading to low wages’, yet wonders that ‘in spite of the alleged poverty of the weavers’ poverty, they were able to place themselves in a strong bargaining position’, and furthermore, that ‘the universal poverty of the weavers, repeated with such persistence throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, become difficult to explain in view of their equally well-recorded spatial and occupational mobility’.57 If in this context one remembers the comment of Robert Orme which we quoted a little later, then one wonders whether the alleged poverty of the weavers was only a sham and not a fact? However, at this stage of our knowledge, it is extremely difficult to make a definitive assertion on the point. Perhaps it is better to contend, in tune with a renowned scholar on the subject, that ‘the poverty of weavers remains an unidentified historical concept’,58 and that seems to be quite appropriate. In this context the observation of the official historian of the English Company, Robert Orme, who lived in Bengal for a few years in the early 1750s, will be pertinent:59 . . . the dread of extortion or violence from the officers of the district to which he [the weaver] belongs, makes it prudence in him to appear to be poor; so that the chapman who sets him to work, finds him destitute of everything but his loom, and is therefore obliged to furnish him with money, . . . in order to purchase materials, and to subsist him until his work is finished.

If that be so, was the weavers’ poverty only a pretence and not a fact? At this stage of our knowledge, it is extremely difficult to make a definitive assertion on the point. Perhaps it is better to contend, in tune with the renowned scholar’s assertion that ‘the poverty of weavers remains an unidentified historical concept’60 and that seems to be quite appropriate. However, given the fact that there was a huge demand for textiles on the one hand and the bargaining power of the Bengal weavers on the other, which we have already referred to, the alleged poverty of the weavers seems hardly tenable. From the documentation in the records, it is amply clear that the weavers were not at all ignorant

144

SPINNING YARNS

about the demand in the market or about the competition among the numerous buyers for procuring Bengal textiles. Along with that, if one considers the fact that when the prices offered for the cloth did not ‘afford them [the weavers] a sustenance’ or when they knew how and when to ‘raise the value of their work’ to compensate for the rise in prices of rice, cotton and other staples’,61 then it is difficult to subscribe to the theory of abject poverty of the weavers in the early modern era. Moreover, it is mentioned in the records time and again that the weavers often started weaving new varieties when the old ones did not yield desired profit and even often refused to take advances for manufacturing fabrics which they thought would not be profitable.62 In this context one has to take into account another important fact that the weaver was free to buy his own yarn whereby he could adjust the price offered for his cloth by using inferior and cheaper thread. That the weavers often took recourse to such ploys even while working in the mulboos khas cooties and weaving high quality fabric for the royalty is attested by John Taylor in his famous report on the Dhaka Cloth Production, 1800. According to this, the weaver enhanced his profit from Rs. 41 to 47 by using cheaper and inferior quality yarn.63 The observation of Sir John Child in 1689 that if the ‘weavers were so poor that they could not afford to provide cloth without advance being given, they were perhaps “not all so poor” as to supply goods against ready money’.64 It was indeed a fact that the buyers, especially the Asian merchants, often bought cloth in sizeable quantity against cash payment in the open market besides those procured through advance contracts. However, it is indeed difficult to reconcile the ‘alleged poverty’ of the artisans in view of the huge demand for textiles on the one hand and the weaver’s bargaining power on the other to which we have already referred to. The documentation in the records makes it amply clear that the weavers were not completely ignorant about the demand in the markets for their produce or the competition among the numerous buyers or when the prices offered for their cloth did not ‘afford them a sustenance’ or when to ‘raise the value of their work to compensate for the rise in prices of rice, cotton and other staples’.65 Moreover, the records mention time and again that the weavers often

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

145

used to weave new varieties when the old ones did not yield desired profit and often refused to take advances for manufacturing fabrics which they thought would not be profitable.66 At the same, it has to be taken into consideration in this respect, which we have indicated earlier, is that the weaver, despite accepting the advance, was free to buy his own yarn whereby he could adjust the price offered for his cloth and the actual cost of weaving it to allow him a reasonable profit. That this was a fact is reported by John Taylor who stated that the weavers, even while making high quality muslins for the royalty, enhanced their profit from Rs. 41 to 47 by using cheaper and inferior quality thread.67 Again, as Sir John Child, a Director of the Company argued in 1689, if the weavers were so ‘poor’ that they could not afford to provide cloth without advance being given, they were ‘not all so poor’ as to supply goods against ready money.68 It was indeed a fact that the merchants, especially the Asians, often purchased piece-goods against ready money besides those procured against advances. It was the advance system which is taken as an indication by the foreign travellers as well as the European advocates of the ‘alleged poverty’ of the weavers in India. But this is a completely mistaken notion. The advance system was quite suitable and advantageous to all parties involved – the weavers and the merchants/buyers/dalals, etc. – it met the needs of all of them. By this arrangement, the weavers receive the capital needed for his sustenance, buy yarn and other material for weaving, etc., and merchants/buyers, etc., were more or less assured of obtaining the quantities and types of cloth they required. There is ample evidence in Company records that there were many weavers whether in Bengal or in south India as well as in other production centres who possessed funds to finance production on their own but preferred to take advance from merchants as that would force the latter to bear some of the risks involved with production such as fluctuation in the prices of yarn and cloth, shortage of yarn or grains, etc. So to consider that the weavers took advances as they were poor is too simplistic assumption which is hardly tenable. In this context it may be mentioned that the weavers in India were paid advances in cash, and not in kind while in Europe the advances were in kind – in raw material – and cash which was part of their wages.

146

SPINNING YARNS

In the process, in Europe and England, the final product was the property of the merchant financier while the weaver in India remained the owner of his product. The documentation in the sources will bear out that in all probability, the poverty of the weavers is a ‘European construction’ perpetuated by Company servants, foreign travellers and the European writers. But it has been amply demonstrated by Vijaya Ramaswami and Prasannan Parthasarathi69 in their studies on south India that the above assertions of the Europeans were hardly based on empirical evidence. The said observation is equally applicable to Bengal as well. The views of the European travellers or writers and even those of the Company servants are to be taken with a pinch of salt as none of them had a firsthand knowledge of India and its people. The travellers/ visitors were hardly acquainted with the social and cultural complexities of the Indian society. Hardly had they any linguistic competence to have a dialogue with the working class or the masses in India. Not only was their idea about India superficial, they suffered also from a sense of European superiority for which they could hardly judge the Indian situation properly. So far as the European writers are concerned, their assessment of India and its people was based on second hand knowledge, hearsay and bazaar gossips, and hence not much reliable. However, that the Indian weavers and other artisans were not that ‘poor’ as has been portrayed in contemporary literature, but that they had been much better off than those in Britain has already been demonstrated earlier. We have seen, wage-wise the Indian weavers, spinners, etc., whether in south India or in Bengal, were ahead of their counterparts in England. In other respects too, the Indian artisans connected with the textile industry were in a much better position than those in Britain. For example, the Indian weavers enjoyed more freedom and advantages which were not available to their British counterparts. The Indian weavers, whether in Bengal or in the south, was free to sell his product to anyone he wanted to even after taking the advance from one particular buyer. Similarly, he had the freedom to cancel his contract by returning the advance but the merchantcontractor had no such freedom – he could not break a contract nor demand the return of the advance. Moreover, the weaver had the liberty to dictate the prices at the time of the contract and he could

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

147

compensate for the price rise in raw materials which might have affected his profit by using inferior and cheaper threads while weaving ordered cloth. Furthermore, unlike his British counterparts, he was free from any political interference in his work. But the most important difference between him and his counterpart in Britain was that unlike the British weavers, and for that matter even the weavers in Europe, the Indian weaver was not reduced to, in Max Weber’s terminology, the position of a ‘wage earner’.70 In the verlagg system of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe or the ‘putting out system’ of Britain, the artisans were supplied with necessary raw materials and the cash payment made out to them was an advance against their wages. But in the dadni system, however, the weavers were always given advance in cash, and there is hardly any evidence of advance made in kind. As we have seen earlier, even in the royal karkhanas, the weavers brought their own yarn. Thus it is apparent that the Indian weaver retained the ownership of his means of production – his loom, bought his own yarn independently, and at least in theory was the owner of his production. The assertion that ‘this was no more than an illusion of ownership’ is not at all tenable. The contract under the dadni (advance) system was in fact in the form of sales where the artisans retained considerable independence. At the most, the system promoted the control of merchant capital over production, and not the process of production itself. It was after the British conquest of Bengal in 1757 that the weavers had virtually become wage workers in terms and conditions over which they had no control to which we shall revert to later.71 But the big question is how to reconcile the ‘alleged poverty’ of the Indian weavers in the pre-colonial era in the light of the evidence cited above? In this context it is pertinent to emphasize the fact that the weavers like the peasantry were not a homogeneous group. There was a considerable stratification among the weavers. There were rich weavers who often used their own capital in manufacturing cloth which is obvious from a contemporary source wherein it has been categorically mentioned that ‘respectable families of the weaver-caste used to employ their own capital in manufacturing goods, which was sold freely on their own accounts’. It has also been stated there that in one morning 800 pieces of muslin was sold by such a weaver at

148

SPINNING YARNS

the door of a gentleman at Dhaka.72 Then there were the master weavers who were involved in weaving with fellow weavers and helpers, and using a few looms. However, it needs be clarified that unlike in south India, head weavers were not to be found in large numbers in Bengal – we only come across very few of them in our sources. It appears from our sources that most of the weavers in Bengal were independent producers who were mostly engaged in textile production for domestic and long distance markets. They undertook weaving on an individual basis working mostly full-time in his occu­ pation. But as we argued earlier, it seems most unlikely this category of weavers could hardly be identified as ‘poor’, given the fact that there was a heavy demand for Bengal textiles from both the Asian and European traders till the mid-eighteenth century. Hence it will be prudent to examine their condition in order to find out how ‘poor’ were these ‘poor’ weavers. Needless to say, there can hardly be any doubt that the ‘rich’ weavers and the head weavers won’t come under the category of ‘poor’ weavers. The fact that the Bengali spinners, as we have alluded to earlier, regarded the spinning wheel as their ‘dearest’ one, for it was their main source of happiness (income) and as spinning yarn was an integral part of textile production, it can be reasonably argued that like the spinners, the weavers too were happy (with good income), implying that their income from weaving was enough to keep them happy and hence not really, ‘poor’. The argument I made earlier73 that probably it was this category of weavers which was referred to in the sources as ‘poor’ and it was they who were said to be in debt to the merchants and dalals in the records. But now I revise that opinion in the face of new evidence and would like to maintain that it was the small weavers with little capital who were mainly referred to as ‘poor’ in the records. Of course, there were small weavers too, with very little working capital, and it may be they were the ones referred to as ‘poor’. But it seems that they were only a very small part of the weaving population. The vast majority of weavers were independent producers, working full-time to cater for the domestic and long distance markets. And as we said earlier, it would be wrong to label them as ‘poor’. However, it may be mentioned that some of these weavers, unlike the peasant weaver, could not always fall back, if need be, on an

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

149

alternative source of employment. It is possible that it was this section of the weavers who were referred to as ‘poor’. Indeed there is indication in the sources that some of these weavers were sometime indebted to the merchants or the dalals but that does not probably imply the poverty of the weavers in general; it might also be an occasional inconvenience which even big operators may face once in a while. So the grouse of the merchants, and sometime of the Company officials, that the weavers/artisans could not be always trusted with dadni is to be taken with some caution, remembering the fact that the merchants and Company officials might have tried to raise the question of the alleged poverty of the weavers to cover up their failure to conduct business properly or their inability to buy these goods at a cheaper rate or even to justify the inflated price of export commodities they claimed to have paid, appropriating the balance to themselves. At the same time it has to be taken into account that a portion of the weavers’ profit was pocketed by the merchant-middlemen and officials. There is little doubt that the weaver seldom received the full amount of the advance to be paid at the time of contract as the dalals, paikars and other middlemen appropriated a part of it. Most often he became the victim of the deception perpetrated by the middlemen whether in regard to advance or the final price to be paid to him. Moreover he was exploited by the bureaucracy who would grab a part of his profit, a fact clearly stated by John Taylor who noted that even in the royal karkhanas the weaver received only 75 per cent of the actual price of the cloth he produced, the rest being appropriated by the daroga and his assistants at the karkhanas.74 Despite his considerable bargaining power, the weaver could not always effectively utilize it because mostly isolated as he was within his rural community and caste barriers, sometime he lacked the collective bargaining power of a combined group against the exploitation. But it should be remembered that most likely, and for which there in ample evidence in the records, in normal years the situation was not so bad when, as Robert Orme pointed out, ‘his [the weaver’s] natural indolence . . . is satisfied in procuring by his labour, his daily bread.’75 This attitude of the artisans is well reflected also in the Danish account of 1789 which is as follows:76 ‘In Bengal . . . the spinner and the weaver require and expect no more than is necessary to pay for

150

SPINNING YARNS

the material, procure enough to eat and to have a little leisure; when times are good they even flourish in this way.’ POSTPLASSEY SCENARIO

Now let us see what the situation was in the post-Plassey era. It has been reasonably established in the foregoing pages that the weaver/ spinner and other artisans were not very badly off. They had at least the minimum subsistence and for most of the time much better than that. But the question to be asked is whether they enjoyed the same during the Company regime. The answer is an emphatic no. Whatever freedom and bargaining power the weaver enjoyed in the pre-Plassey period was completely lost under the aegis of the Company rule. The repressive and exploitative machinery of the Company and its servants who were assisted by their paid Indian gomastas deprived the weavers and other artisans of their independence to choose the buyers of their produce, the power they enjoyed earlier while fixing the prices at the time of the contract, etc., during the Company regime. It has been graphically depicted in several contemporary works how the weavers and other artisans were subjected to inhuman oppression and ruthless exploitation by the Company and its officials in the second half of the eighteenth century.77 This has been amply demonstrated by an anonymous author of an early nineteenth-century manuscript which runs as follows:78 The whole inland trade of the country and the provision of the Company’s investments ... became one continued scene of oppression, the baneful effects of which was felt by every weaver and manufacturer in the country, every article produced being under a monopoly in which the English arbitrarily decided what quantities of goods each manufacturer should deliver, and the prices he should receive for them.... Generally, a number of the weavers are registered in the books of the company’s gomasthas, and not permitted to work for any other person, transferred from one gomastha to another as so many slaves, subject to the tyranny and roguery of every succeeding gomastha. The English with great strictness monopolised the weavers; their hardship is scarcely to be described.

According to an estimate made in a recent study, while the cost of manufacture and other charges went up considerably between 1757

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

151

and 1800, there was hardly any increase in the earnings of the weavers during the same period. But as the prices of food stuff rose noticeably during the said period, it can be presumed that the weaver’s earning from his loom was hardly adequate to provide him with his basic needs.79 That the weavers under Company rule in the second half of the eighteenth century lived in a pathetic condition is well illustrated in the Bengali records of the Dhaka factory, preserved in the India Office Records of the British Library. There one finds that when a weaver of Titbadi (or Titalbadi), one of the famous aurungs (production centres) of muslin, died, he left behind his wife, a little yarn, his paltry tools, one stone tureen, one water pot of brass, one rupee due from a spinner and a ‘servant’ (apprentice) while his debt amounted to Rs. 13.05.80 Almost similar was the fate of a weaver of Sonargaon, one of the most famous manufacturing centres of Dhaka muslin. When he died he left behind his wife and child daughter with a few earthly belongings but with a debt of Rs. 141.05.81 No such instance is to be found in the early eighteenth century. So it can be reasonably argued that the weavers and artisans were in a much better and much more enviable position than their counterparts in the latter half of the century. So far as the spinners are concerned, their woes in the Company period knew no bound is reflected in the letter of a spinner which was published in a newspaper in 1828 wherein she lamented that before the import of the British yarn to Bengal, though a widow and with no income earlier, she was able to maintain a big family, gave her daughters suitable marriage and was able to save some money but with the advent of the yarn from Britain, her earning by spinning had gone down so much that she, with her old mother-in-law, is now on the verge of starvation.82 CONCLUSION

So it can be reasonably concluded on the basis of the evidence and arguments put forward above that the ‘alleged poverty’ of the Indian weavers, whether in Bengal or in south India, and for that matter of fact in other important centres of textile production, was a construct of the Europeans and is far divorced from reality. It has been shown here that the Indian weavers and spinners were better off than their

152

SPINNING YARNS

counterparts in Britain. But more importantly, the fact is that the Indian weavers and others were in a much more enviable position than their peers in the first half of the eighteenth century but their condition deteriorated in the second half of the century under the aegis of the Company rule. NOTES 1. Cf. Georgio Riello and Tirthankar Ray, How India Clothed the World, Brill, 2009; S. Chaudhury, Prithibir Tantghar: Banglar Bastrashilpa O Banijja [in Bengali: World’s Handloom House: Bengal Textile Industry and Trade, 1600-1800], Ananda Publishers, Calcutta, 2014. 2. P. J. Thomas, ‘The Indian Cotton Industry about 1700 a.d.’, Modern Review, February 1924, pp. 45; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers, p. 39; Hameeda Hossain, Company Weavers, pp. 47, 174. 3. H.H. Colebrooke, Remarks on the Husbandry, pp. 17-2, 174. 4. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, B PP, vol. LXXXVI, JulyDecember 1967, p. 126. 5. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 410. 6. P. Thomas, ‘Indian Cotton Industry’, M odern Review, February 1924, pp. 134-5. 7. See, S. Chaudhuri, Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, 1650­ 1720, Calcutta, 1975, p. 151, how the English Company found it difficult to bring weavers from Kasimbazar to Hughli in the 1660s despite incentives being offered, and again how the Company failed completely to get them to Madras ‘for their caste and lineage is such that they shall lose their birth right if they come upon salt water’. 8. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, London, 1805, p. 411. 9. For details, see, S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century, New Delhi, 1995, pp. 155-8. 10. Beng. Letters Received, vol. 22, f. 298, para 80, 18 September 1752; FWIHC, vol. 1, p. 606. 11. Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, Annex. to Consult., 17 November 1754. 12. BPC, vol. 29, f. 157vo., 11 August 1757. 13. S. Arasaratnam, ‘Weavers, Merchants and Company’, IESHR, vol. XVII, no. 3, p. 274. 14. Ibid. 15. Vijaya Ramaswamy, Textiles and Weavers in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 12, 14, 29-30. 16. Prasannan Parthasarathi, ‘Rethinking Wages and Competitiveness in the

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

153

Eighteenth Century: Britain and South India’, Past and Present, no. 158, p. 94. D.B. (Despatch Book), vol. 100, f. 586, para. 29, 26 April 1721, India Office Records (henceforth, IOR), British Library, London. Bengal Public Consultations (henceforth BPC), vol. 143, f. 473vo, 6 February 1739, IOR. Ibid., vol. 17, f. 129, 1 June 1744. Ibid., vol. 17, f. 15, 12 July 1744. Ibid., vol. 6, f. 348, 9 January 1727. Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, Annex to Consult., 17 November 1754. Quoted in N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 25. N.K. Sinha, The Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 159. 4 cauris or karis = 1 gonda, 20 gonda = 1 pun or pan, 4 pun of cauris = 1 anna, 16 annas = 1 rupee; acc. to another version, 4 cauris = 1 gonda, 20 gonda = 1 pun, 32 puns = 1 current rupee, i.e. 2,560 cauris make a rupee. BPC, vol. 11, f. 289, 28 August 1736. Bengal and Madras Papers, vol. II, p. 34, Fort William Consultations, 11 December 1752; BPC, vol. 26, f. 214, 11 December 172; James Long, Unpublished Records, ed. M.P. Saha, p. 40, doc. no. 103. Home Misc., vol. 456F, f. 205. Ibid., ff. 145-7. Ibid., f. 205. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, BPP, vol. LXXXVI, JulyDecember 1967, p. 130. Proceedings of the Board of Trade, 24 February 1787, quoted in N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 176. Home Misc., vol. 393, f. 261. Pathasarathi, ‘Rethinking Wages and Competitiveness in the Eighteenth Century: Britain and South India’, op. cit., p. 82. Ibid., ‘Rethinking Wages and Competitiveness in the Eighteenth Century: Britain and South India’, Past and Present, no. 158, pp. 79-109. Ibid., pp. 85-6. Ibid., pp. 86-7. Francois Bernier, Travel in the Mughal Empire, 1656-68, p. 175. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 184. Ramaswamy, Textile and Weavers in South India, pp. 59-60. Taylor’s Report, Home Misc., 456F, ff. 13-35. Proceedings of the Board of Trade, 2 July to 31 August 1790 quoted in N.K. Sinha, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 184. Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 16, 23 April 1751; Home Misc., 456F, f. 153. Sinha, op. cit., p. 184.

154

SPINNING YARNS

45. Quote in H.R. Ghosal, Economic Transition in Bengal, p. 10. 46. Ole Feldbaek, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, B engal Past & Present, vol. XXXVI, p. 132. 47. Ramaswamy, op. cit., p. 156. 48. Ibid., pp. 153, 156. 49. Parthasarathi, op. cit., pp. 83-5. 50. Parhthasarathi, Past & Present, op. cit., pp. 86-7. 51. Ibid., pp. 9-10. 52. Fact. Records, Malda, vol. 1, Diary, 25 October 1680; Home Misc., vol. 803, ff. 84-5; BPC, vol. 11, f. 289, 28 August 1736; Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 12 June 1743, 2 July 1743, 1 March 1744; Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, Annex to Consult., 17 November 1754. 53. Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce (London, 1728; rpt. Oxford, 1928, pp. 49-50, quoted in Parthasaratrhi, op. cit., pp. 79-80. 54. John Basset, Chronicum Rusticu-Commerciale, ed. John Smith, 2 vols., London, 1747, vol. 1, p. 351, quoted in Parthasarathi, op. cit., p. 80. 55. Francois Pelsaert, Remonstrantie or Jahangir’s India, tr. W.H. Moreland and P. Geyl, India at the Death of Akbar, Cambridge, 1925, p. 60. See, Moreland, At the Death of Akbar, pp. 265-7. 56. Quoted in Tapan Raychaudhri, ‘The State and the Economy: The Mughal Empire’, in Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib (eds.), Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, p. 175. 57. K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, p. 270. For his general arguments on the subject, see, pp. 268-71. 58. Chaudhuri, ibid., p. 270. 59. Robert Orme, Historical Fragments, p. 9. 60. K.N. Chaudhuri, op. cit., p. 270. 61. BPC, vol. 16, f. 371, 14 December 43; Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 6 December 1743; Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, 17 November 1754. 62. BPC, vol. 17, f. 129, 11 June 1744; f. 51, 12 July 1744. 63. Home Misc., vol. 456F, ff. 145-9. 64. DB, vol. 92, f. 69, 11 September 1689. 65. See, BPC, vol. 16, f. 371, 14 December 43; Fact. Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 6, 6 December 1743; Fact. Records, Dacca, vol. 3, 17 November 1754. 66. BPC, vol. 17, f. 129, 11 June 1744; f. 51, 12 July 1744. 67. Home Misc., 456F, ff. 145-9. 68. Db, vol. 92, f. 69, 11 September 1689. 69. Ramaswmy, Textile and Weavers in South India, op. cit., pp. 11-15, 29-34; Parthasarathi, ‘Rethinking Wages and Competitiveness’, op. cit., pp. 78-86; 89-103. 70. Max Weber, General Economic History, pp. 99-101. 71. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, pp. 157-60; Hameeda

H OW ‘ P O O R ’ W E R E T H E ‘ P O O R ’ I N D I A N W E AV E R S ?

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

78. 79. 80.

81. 82.

155

Hossain, Company Weaver of Bengal, Delhi, 1988, pp. 108-39; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers of Bengal, Calcutta, 1978, pp. 79-87. Mss. Eur. D. 283, f. 21; William Bolts, Considerations on Indian Affairs, pp. 193-4. S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century, op. cit., p. 171. Home Misc. 456F, f. 137. Robert Orme, Military Transactions, vol. II, section, 1, p. 9. Ole Feldebaeck, ‘Cloth Production in Bengal’, op. cit., p. 126. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, pp. 157-81; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers of Bengal, pp. 49-87; Hameeda Hossain, Company Weavers, op. cit., pp. 1108-39. Mss. Eur. D. 283, ff. 37-8; emphasis added. Hameeda Hossain, Company Weavers, op. cit., p. 61. Bengali Mss., I.O.4046. It is significant that in a note in the document it is stated that the custom then was that the servant (nafar/naukar) may be sold if necessary. Ibid., I.O. 4045, ff. 146-7. Sanbad Patre Shekaler Katha (in Bengali) meaning , ‘Olden Days depicted in Newspapers’, Collected and edited by Brojendranath Bandyopadhyay, Bangiya Sahitya Parishad, 1st edn., 1339 (Bangla Saal), 4th rpt., 1377 bs. The letter in full is to be found in Appendix 1.

CHAPTER 11

Technology in Bengal

Textile Industry

t has been indicated earlier that there had been no change whatsoever in the production organization of the textile industry in Bengal in the early modern era. But the question that is being asked is that why there had been no technological innovation even when the huge demand of the European Companies had to be met which was tentatively very difficult to meet with the traditional system of technology that was followed in Bengal in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century? So one wonders why there was no technological innovation despite the great demand for Bengal textiles in Europe. It is significant that most of the renowned Indian historians have tried to explain the absence of any technological innovation in the textile industry in various ways. Some explained it in terms of a ‘low­ level equilibrium trap’ by which the availability of surplus labour and hence low wages enabled an increase in output without any rise in per unit productivity, and too much of specialization in the industry which would have required ‘very great incentive to introduce any change in technology’. Others have tried to trace it to the existence of a numerous class of artisans and craftsmen able to live at very low wages which mitigated against any labour-saving techniques. Yet others pointed out the rigidity of the system and tyrannical administration where there was little incentive for innovation.1 There is little doubt that the European export of Bengal textiles in the second half of the seventeenth century and the first half of the

I

T E C H N O L O G Y I N B E N G A L T E X T I L E I N D U S T RY

157

eighteenth century was quite large. But the important fact to be kept in mind is how significant quantitatively the European demand was compared with the purchases of the Asian/Indian merchants for supplies to various parts of India and Asia, and especially in proportion to the total production in Bengal. In this context it may be pointed out that, as I have shown elsewhere2 and argued here also,3 that the European trade was certainly not the most important factor in the commercial life of Bengal even in the mid-eighteenth century. For that matter, even during this period, the volume of Asian export from Bengal, especially of the key commodities like silk and textiles, was much larger than that of the Europeans. In an estimate of the late eighteenth century,4 the total production of cloth for local consumption in Bengal was valued at Rs. 60 million. If that be so, it can be assumed that the amount of textile production for local consumption was at least the same, if not more (considering the great famine of 1770 and the mortality following it5), in the first half of the century. As against this, the textile export by Asian merchants ranged from Rs. 9 to 10 million while that of the Europeans was around Rs. 5 to 6 million at the most. Thus the European export seem to be only a small proportion of the total output and as such could be easily met without fundamental change in the technique of production. If the European demand had been significantly high compared to the total output so as to put severe strain on the supply side, then only the question of meeting the extra demand without any technological change would have arisen. But as it was only a small part of the total production, it could be met by stretching the existing structure of the industry a little. In other words, the question of technological innovation in response to ‘huge’ or ‘phenomenal’ increase in European trade becomes superfluous. But if we take into account the combined amount of Asian European export of textiles from Bengal in the mid-eighteenth century, then the positions becomes somewhat different. It is said that with the Mughal conquest of Bengal in 1575 and the resultant peace and stability, the ‘outer world’ came to Bengal and Bengal went to the ‘outer world’.6 Though perhaps an overstatement, there is little doubt that one of the benefits of the ‘Mughal peace’ was the expansion trade and industry. By the early decade of the seventeenth century, Bengal’s

158

SPINNING YARNS

trade with Upper India and areas beyond seem to be considerable. And the trade of the European Companies in Bengal saw a boom from around the 1680s. So if we add the Asian export to that of the Europeans, then the total amount of export becomes quite considerable and forms a substantial part of the total production. In this context the absence of technological change comes in. It is perhaps true that there were several inhibiting factors which stood in the way of technological innovations. As such it is imperative to try to identify these deterrents. It should be emphasized, however, that the textile industry as a whole did not remain altogether static throughout the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries.7 If not so much in techniques, there were certainly some changes in the organization of manufacture, though in a limited scale and without signalling a break with the past. The technology remained simple and capital inputs were minimal; yet the industry could achieve a substantial increase in the total output through the familiar instruments of dadni, taking up the slack in the economy, increased localization, a high degree of specialization and a minute differentiation of functions based on a distinct division of labour. The organization of production showed a remarkable capacity for adaptation and response to the expanding demand. These were, however, qualitative developments within the limits of familiar pattern and did not signify any break with the traditional system. But the changes in the organization were more fundamental than those in technology. However, there was no emergence of a rich artisanate class as yet and that only indicates a limited range of form of organization even in the mid-eighteenth century. Though one occasionally comes across the mention of ‘respectable family of weavers’ or ‘head weavers’ employing a number of artisans in the sources, they seem to be exceptions rather than the rule and peripheral to the system of production. Nor were the merchants or other affluent groups involved in any way in the production process. Hence the initiative for introducing any innovation in the technology could have come only from the weaver-artisans who lacked the incentive to pioneer such things. Having no access to the mercantile profit, no scope for upward social mobility, exploited and abused – though occasionally – by officials and merchants alike, and given the relatively low remuneration

T E C H N O L O G Y I N B E N G A L T E X T I L E I N D U S T RY

159

even for high skill, they had little reason to initiate any change in technology. As such, the extreme simplicity of tools used and a general in­ difference to any labour-saving device characterized the technology of textile industry in the mid-eighteenth century as it did in the earlier periods. The Danish report aptly pointed out:8 ‘. . . the country’s way of production – so different from the European way – which is generally managed with certain funds, by help of machines, and under supervision of professional entrepreneurs. In Bengal, on the other hand, no machines shorten the work of the artisan.’ However, there is no denying the fact that the continuation of the age-old technology was only possible because of the monopoly Bengal textile enjoyed in the world market. The absence of any competition whatsoever, availability of cheap labour, easy access to raw material which was cheaper than in any other parts – all this made the quest for technological innovation redundant. Yet it is worthwhile to identify the major elements which might have inhabited or restricted the process of change which otherwise would have taken place. The dominant element, it seems, in this respect, the disclaimer of a late eighteenth-century writer not­ withstanding, was probably the rigours of the caste-system within which the weaver-artisan had to function. This is vividly described by the author of the Danish Report on the Bengal textile industry in the eighteenth century and it runs as follows:9 Always poor, without even thinking of better conditions, they [the weaverartisans work solely for their subsistence; they have no prospects of improving their work or changing the organization or the tools they use; an as a weaver cannot become a member of another caste or tribe than his father was, he is bound to follow his father’s trade and will never become else than a weaver; therefore he does not think ahead, as long as he has enough money or advance to buy a few seers of cotton which he himself, his wife and his family may clean and spin, and as long as he may take his pieces of cloth to the market in the weaving district. . . .

Even the Dutch traveller J.S. Stavorinus who visited Bengal corroborates the above when he wrote that the weaver or artisan ‘can never expect to rise above the station in which they are born’.10 Hence the weaver-artisan’s vested interest was naturally inclined to continue

160

SPINNING YARNS

the labour-intensive technique which he inherited from generation to generation for ages. NOTES 1. K.N. Chaudhuri, Trading World of Asia, pp. 274-5; Tapan Raychaudhuri, Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, p. 295; Irfan Habib, ‘The Technology and Economy of Mughal India’, IESHR, vol. XVII, no. 1, pp. 32-3. 2. S. Chaudhury, Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, p. 254; Om Prakash, Dutch Company, p. 101. 3. See Chapter 9. 4. H.T. Colebrooke, Remarks on the Husbandry, p. 105. 5. The famine is said to have wiped off one-third of the population of Bengal, see, BPP, vol. XXIX, p. 37; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers, p. 188. 6. J.N. Sarkar (ed.), History of Bengal, vol. II, p. 188. 7. For the controversy on the issue, see, Morris D. Morris et al., Indian Economy. 8. Ole Feldbaeck, ‘Cloth Production’, BPP, July-December 1967, p. 138. 9. Ibid., pp. 127-8. 10. J.S. Stavorinus, Voyages, p. 411.

Decline of Textile Trade and Industry

CHAPTER 12

The Decline of the

Textile Trade and Industry

here is little doubt that the Indian textile trade and industry began to decline, especially in Bengal, from around the late eighteenth century. In this context it will be pertinent to examine the role of the weavers/artisans in the textile production in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, though we have already discussed it earlier. This will help us to understand better how and why the decline in the industry started in the post-Plassey period. So far the weavers enjoyed complete freedom as to what type of cloth he would manufacture, to whom to sell his produce and in this respect he did not have to face any obstacle from the administrative authorities. He was free to buy the yarn that he needed for weaving from the local hat without interference from any quarter whatsoever. He could have made cloth in his own cottage with the help of his family and his cottage was his workshop. Significantly enough, he was the owner of the simple tools with which he wove the cloth. Though he worked with the dadni or advance he took from the merchants, dalals and other middlemen in general, but none of the latter would have any control over him. Moreover, he was the sole owner of his produce and no one else had any claim whatsoever over the goods he manu­ factured. At the same time he had complete freedom to bargain with the buyers of his products and could easily deny if the terms/prices given by the buyers were not to his liking. But unfortunately, the whole scenario changed completely after

T

162

SPINNING YARNS

the English conquest of Bengal and the acquisition of the diwani by the English East India Company in 1765. Henceforth the Company became the de facto master of Bengal politics and economy and ushered in a reign of tyranny, so to say, in Bengal. The Company along with its employees and gomastas made the weavers/artisans work like slaves which could never have been thought of earlier, whether under the nawabi regime or for that matter of fact even for centuries in earlier period. The Company servants began to engage themselves wholly in their private trade and in this they were aided by the Company gomastas. The Company and its servants almost forced the weavers to enrol themselves with a particular gomasta whomever they wanted to without bothering to know whether the weavers are willing to register themselves under that particular gomasta whom the Company chose. The weavers were not allowed to make cloth for any other customer but for the gomasta with whom he was enrolled. More sinister design of the Company was that it made a rule that the weavers had to manufacture only the textiles which the gomasta with whom he was registered and for none else. Moreover it was the gomasta who would order him what type of cloth and how many pieces he would be required to produce and what was the price that he would get for his cloth. Needless to say, the prices offered by the gomasta were much below the market rates. Not only that, weavers are often transferred from one gomasta’s register to another’s – like so ‘many slaves under one master transferred from owner to another’, as remarked by an anonymous author of an English manuscript in the India Office Records, British Library. Over and above all this, whatever freedom or bargaining power the weaver he had enjoyed before the Company rule, he lost them completely in the second half of the eighteenth century under the repressive and exploitative machinery of the Company and its servants who were assisted in the process by their Indian gomastas. Several recent works have graphically shown how the weavers were put under inhuman oppression and ruthless exploitation by the Company and its servants in the second half of the eighteenth century when it became the virtual ruler of the country after the nawab’s debacle at the Battle of Plassey. The anonymous author of an early nineteenth-century manuscript in the India Office Records thus described the position

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

163

of the weaver under the English Company rule Bengal in the second half of the eighteenth century: The whole inland trade of the country and the provision of the Company’s investments . . . became one continued scene of oppression, the baneful effects of which was felt by every weaver and manufacturer in the country, every article produced being made a monopoly in which the English arbitrarily decided what quantities of goods each manufacturer should deliver, the prices he should receive for them. . . . Generally, a number of weavers are registered in the books of the company’s gomastahs, and ‘not permitted to work for any other person, being transferred from one gomastah to another as so many slaves, subject to the tyranny and roguery of every succeeding gomastah. The English with great strictness monopolised the weavers; their hardship is scarcely to be described’. 1

Again, the factor that added to the decline of the textile trade and industry was the fact that the English East India Company after its victory over the nawab in 1757 was intent on destroying their rivals in Bengal trade – especially the Armenians, the Dutch, the French and the big Indian merchant-bankers. Their main rival in the textile trade were the Armenians and other Indian/Asian merchants who exported much more textiles from Bengal than the total volume of the export by the European Companies which we have shown in details earlier. As such they first saw to it after Plassey that the Asian/ Indian merchants so much active Bengal’s traditional overland export trade are eliminated from the scene. Their first victim was the Armenian merchant Khoja Wazid. Clive was so annoyed with him that in one of his correspondences he referred to Wazid as ‘that rascal’.2 His enmity towards Wazid was not only for political reasons but more so for clash of commercial interests. Wazid was very close to Nawab Sirajudaullah and was an important member of the nawab’s coterie. The main reason for Clive’s antagonism towards the Armenians was that under the leadership of Wazid they joined hands with the French to carry on overseas trade and this resulted in a great decline in the private trade of the English Company servants which was flourishing in the 1730s and the early 1740s. Like Clive, most of the Company servants were actively involved in this private trade. It was in order to reprieve the private trade of the Company servants that the conquest of Bengal became an absolute necessity for the English in the mid-1750s.3 A

164

SPINNING YARNS

little after Battle of Plassey, Wazid was imprisoned by the Company and it is said that there he very conveniently poisoned himself to death.4 After Wazid, it was the turn of Umichand. These two and the Jagat Seths were the three most famous and powerful merchant-princes of Bengal in the first half of the eighteenth century. In fact, the house of Jagat Seth was the greatest banker of the then world which was attested to by most of the directors of the Dutch Company in Bengal noted time and again in their ‘Memorie’5 as also by the officials of the English Company, especially even the official historian of the English Company.6 All the European Companies, without any exception, borrowed money from the Jagat Seths for their investments in Bengal. It was Jagat Seths again who financed textile production and trade and the dadni merchants too, more often than not, borrowed money freely from the Seths for procuring goods for the Asian and European merchants. However, the Seths survived for sometime after Plassey but were done away with by the English Company in the 1760s. With the elimination of the merchant-princes, came along the disappearance of the Asian/Indian merchants who flocked to Bengal in great numbers till the occupation of Bengal by the English. The new dispensation under the Company put up such pressure in different ways as to make it almost impossible for the traditional Asian/Indian merchants to carry on overland trade from Bengal and gradually they were wiped out from the commercial world of Bengal. As a result, the export of Bengal textiles by the Asian/Indian merchants declined to a great extent. The same happened in the case of raw silk export from Bengal by the Asian/Indian merchants who actually exported raw silk four to five times than that of the total export of the com­ modity all the European Companies put together.7 It was not only the Asian/Indian merchants, but even the European Companies, especially the Dutch and the French, who were the main rivals of the English Company, felt the brunt of the wrath of the latter and gradually lost their importance in Bengal’s export trade held so far without much hindrance from any other power including the nawabs of Bengal. Within a short while after the English occupation of Bengal, the Company began to obstruct the trade of the Dutch and the French

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

165

in Bengal. The Company officials began to take away from the weavers the cloth they produced for the Dutch almost by force. It is on record that the Fort William Council instructed the Commercial Residents of Malda and Midnapore to see that the skilled weavers of Jagannathpur, Olmara and other neighbouring areas produce cloth only for the English Company and for none else.8 It will be absolutely clear that it was not only the export trade of the Dutch and the French that declined towards the end of the eighteenth century, the same was the case with the export of the Asian/Indian merchants in the same period as will be reflected in Table 12.1. It is clear from Table 12.1 that Dhaka muslin which was a favourite item of cloth bought by right from the Mughal emperor down to the Bengal nawabs and the Jagat Seths till the mid-eighteenth century was totally to an end towards the end of the century. The same was the case with the Turanis, the French and the Dutch who were eliminated from the market in Dhaka. The trade of the Dhaka muslin only increased marginally from the level in 1747 in the case of the English Company and the private trade of the Company servants. TABLE 12.1: EXPORT OF TEXTILES FROM DHAKA BY

ASIAN/INDIAN MERCHANTS: 1747 AND 1797

Exporter The Emperor at Delhi Nawab of Murshidabad Jagat Seths Turanis Pathans Armenians Mughals Hindus English Company English Private Traders French Company French Private Traders Dutch Company Total

1747 (Rs.)

1797 (Rs.)

1,00,000 3,00,000 1,50,000 1,00,000 1,50,000 5,00,000 4,00,000 2,00,000 3,50,000 2,00,000 2,50,000 50,000 1,00,000

None None None None

5,07,388.40 2,57,136.00 None None None

28,50,000

14,01,545.40

6,37,025.00

Source: Home Misc. 456F, quoted in Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 225.

166

SPINNING YARNS

On the other hand, the export of the Asian merchants including the Armenians, Mughals, Pathans, etc., from Dhaka declined almost to half of their exports in the 1747. If we look at Table 12.1, it will be apparent that the total amount of Dhaka muslin exported in 1747 (to the tune of Rs. 28.5 lakh a year) came down to almost half of its value (a little over Rs. 14 lakh) in 1797, i.e. in just 50 years. So there is little doubt that the export of muslin from Dhaka declined quite a bit towards the end of the eighteenth century from the level it reached in the mid-eighteenth century. Not only that, in later years the muslin trade and industry of Dhaka declined further. According to the report of Dunbar, the acting Commissioner of Dhaka, the decay of the Dhaka muslin trade and industry began around 1789. Though the value of the muslins exported from Dhaka in 1799 was more Rs. 12.5 lakh, it came down to only Rs. 3.5 lakh in 1813. More tragic was the fact from 1827, export of Dhaka textiles stopped completely so that even the Commercial Residency there was abolished from that year.9 Henceforth the cloth produced in Dhaka was mainly for the Indian markets and some for export to Jedda and Basra. Dunbar gave an account of the kind of textiles produced in Dhaka in 1844 which is as follows: 1. Muslin with white body or flower patterns (these were made with yarn produced in Dhaka) 2. Ordinary and middling quality cloth (made with English yarn and for local consumption) 3. Mixed silk (tasar or muga) and cotton cloth (meant for export to Arab countries) 4. Cloth with needle work (cassida) (meant for north-west India: upcountry) 5. Muslin, Kashmiri shawl, etc. 6. Coarse cloth like dhooti, saree

Rs.

50,000

Rs. 5,00,000 Rs. 2,00,000 Rs.

16,000

Rs. 20, 000 Rs. 1,50,000 Total Rs. 9,36,000

Source: Dacca Commissioner Dunbar’s Report, Board’s Collection No. 100112, 2 May 1844, IOR, British Library.

It appears therefore from Dunbar’s account that the production of textile in Dhaka in the mid-nineteenth century came down to

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

167

almost two-thirds of the production in the mid-eighteenth century. This only indicates that Dhaka was producing cloth in the midnineteenth century which was only one-third of what it was manu­ facturing a century back. But what is very significant is that even this small quantity of cloth was produced in Dhaka with yarn im­ ported from England. What it means in actual terms was that the textile industry in Dhaka was now completely disoriented – it was now manufacturing only one-third of what it was producing in the mid-eighteenth century but more painful was the fact the spinning of yarn had come down to one-tenth of its earlier capacity. As such, the cultivation of cotton too declined to one-tenth of its original size. In the report of the Dhaka Magistrate in 1868 it has been clearly indicated that the cultivation of cotton had almost stopped in the district.10 Dunbar has tried to explain the reasons behind the decline of the textile industry and trade in Dhaka. According to him, one of the main factors leading to the decay of Dhaka textile industry (as also that of Bengal and India as a whole) was the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England leading the emergence of steam-power and the introduction of new machineries in textile production. As a result of the application of new technology in England, it was now possible to spin cotton yarn and manufacture cloth at a much cheaper rate than earlier. So long the Bengal weavers and spinners worked at a very low wage compared to their compatriots in England but could hardly compete with their English counterparts who were now using new techniques. Though the Indian artisans were very skilled in the art of spinning and weaving but now it was almost impossible for them to produce cloth at the price which the English workers could afford to because of the new machines invented following the Industrial Revolution. With the decline of the textile industry and trade, there followed the cascading effects – the cultivation of cotton, the spinning and other subsidiary industries connected with textile industry began to decline to a great extent. As a matter of fact, there was a complete change in the scenario of the textile industry that was to be seen till the beginning of the late eighteenth century. Previously, hundreds and thousands of women were engaged in spinning throughout Bengal but now almost all of

168

SPINNING YARNS

them were jobless. As a result of the large import of machine-made yarn to the country, the local production of yarn almost vanished and very little local yarn was available in the market. The reason was very simple – the yarn produced in England of the same fineness as Dhaka yarn was much cheaper than that of Dhaka. Around the midnineteenth century when Dunbar wrote his report (actually 1844), the amount of English yarn imported to Dhaka was estimated at Rs. 3 lakh a year. This underlines the fact that the market for Dhaka yarn was largely contracted. However the weaving industry was less affected than the spinning inasmuch as cloth was manufactured with imported English yarn. And it was not possible for Dhaka cloth woven with local yarn to compete with the cheap textiles produced using low-priced English yarn. Moreover around this time, the amount of English cloth imported from England was valued at Rs. 1.5 lakh a year. The strange thing was that Dhaka cloth produced with local yarn was much more durable than the cloth made with English yarn but the poor people could not resist the temptation to go for the cheaper variety rather than buy something cheaper though not long­ lasting.11 Dunbar further points out that the decay of the Dhaka textile industry began with the competition from the cheap English cloth exported from England to India by the government there. With the beginning of the production of textiles in England with the help of the new technology, the British government imposed heavy tariff on the export of Dhaka/Indian cloth to England and the rate of this tariff was then considered rather prohibitive. Though the rate was later reduced slightly, the situation did not improve at all. However, Dunbar was of the opinion that even if the tariff on Dhaka cloth was wholly withdrawn, the Dhaka cloth would not have been able to compete with the English cloth simply because of the fact the cloth produced in England was much cheaper than the Dhaka cloth. But at the same time Dunbar informs his readers that the British government was not in a position to stop the decline in Dhaka cloth production because it was beyond the power of the government to enforce the measures which could have revived the Dhaka textile industry. So long as the machine made cheap yarn produced in England was available in the market, the expensive Dhaka yarn had

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

169

no chance of survival for the simple reason that the hand-spun Dhaka yarn was much more expensive than the English yarn. Dunbar suggests that if heavy tariff was imposed on the importation of English yarn to Dhaka/India, then possibly the export of yarn to Dhaka/India would have stopped or at least the amount of yarn import to India would have been at least reduced to a great extent. But he confessed that the British government would have never taken such a decision which would have gone against the national interest of Britain. As such, as Dunbar writes, there is no hope for the revival of Dhaka textile industry – ‘it will go down day by day’. And he laments that if things go on like this, the fact that once upon a time Dhaka muslin reigned supreme in the whole of the world will gradually fade away from public memory and hence will be lost from the pages of history.12 So it seems from the above analysis that according to Dunbar, there were three reasons behind the decline and decay of Dhaka textile industry. First, the application of new technology based on steampower, which was a definite boon as a result of Industrial Revolution in England. Second, and what follows from the first, is the importation of cheap machine-made yarn from England to Dhaka/India, and third, the imposition of heavy tariff on export of cloth from Bengal/ India to England/Europe. But the problem with Dunbar was that he did not mention or even gave a hint of the inhuman torture that the Company, its servants and gomastas began to inflict on the weavers/ artisans in the post-Plassey period. Needless to say, this ruthless persecution of the weavers/artisans by the Company and its associates was one of the major factors behind the decline of the textile industry. The brutal treatment and suffering inflicted on the weavers by the Company and its gomastas made most of the weavers leave the profession altogether and turn to agriculture for a living.13 What a big difference in the position of the weavers/artisans from the prePlassey days when they enjoyed a complete freedom in their activities – they could make any type of cloth they wanted to depending on the prices in the market, they could purchase their own yarn from the market, could bargain freely with their customer whoever he was Asian merchants, dadni merchants or Companies, they could sell his product to whomever they wanted to, there was no hindrance to any of their activities from any quarter.

170

SPINNING YARNS

Unfortunately, he lost all his independence which he enjoyed for ages after the English victory at Plassey and their subsequent mastery of Bengal politics and economy. In the new dispensation under the Company, he not only lost whatever privileges and indulgence which accrued to him through the ages but now became, so to say, a fullfledged slave of the Company. This is amply clear from none other than William Bolts, a responsible official of the Company in Bengal in the mid-eighteenth century. Bolts writes that ‘the whole inland trade of the country as at present conducted . . . and that of the Company’s investments’ had become ‘one continued cause of oppression, the baneful effects’ of which was borne by the weavers and artisans with no exception. According to him, it was the Company servants and their gomastas who were the sole authority to decide what type of cloth, how many of them and at what price was a weaver required to make for the Company and the poor weaver had no say whatsoever in the whole process. He further adds that ‘the assent of the poor weaver is in general not deemed necessary’. Upon the weaver’s refusing, he asserts, that it has been known that they (Company servants and their gomastas) had it (the terms, etc., for producing cloth) tied in their girdles and ‘they [weavers] have been sent away with a flogging’.14 William Bolts also gives details regarding the wages/prices the weavers realized from the Company. He states categorically that the price given by the Company to weavers was at least 15 per cent less than the market price. Often the amount paid to the weavers was 40 per cent less than the price in the market.15 Not only that, even other officials of the Company noted that their rival European Companies were ready to pay the weavers 20 to 30 per cent more than what the English Company was paying to them.16 As a matter of fact what happened in the post-Plassey period is that the Company officials’ sole objective was to get involved in Bengal’s inland trade and thus earn a fortune. And to do that without any hindrance from any quarter, they did not hesitate to employ their political power as and when necessary. That is why Bolts asserts that the Company servants and their gomastas appropriated to themselves everywhere such power that even the zamindars or rajas would have dared do in the earlier regimes.17 While emphasizing on the ruthless

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

171

behaviour and cheating habits of the gomastas, Bolts describes how these ‘creatures’ of the Company and its servants forced the weavers to sign an undertaking in which was written – when, how many pieces of cloth and at what price, the weavers would supply. But the gomastas would never tell the weavers what was written in the undertaking nor would they ask the weavers whether they agreed to the terms written in it. As a matter of fact they weavers had no other alternative but to sign the undertaking without knowing what exactly was written in the paper. There was no question of asking for the permission of the weavers whether they agree to the terms. Such was the villainy of the gomastas in the post-Plassey period.18 William Bolts was a severe critic of the Company’s activities in Bengal and there is no reason to doubt about the authenticity of his anger and resentment against the inhuman treatment of the weavers by the Company gomastas. Even loyal officials like Harry Verelst were also very critical of the ways in which the weavers were treated by the gomastas. Verelst went to the extent to underline the fact that the gomastas were a new source of torture and tyranny on the weavers.19 Not only that, even the Board of Directors in London was aware of the torture inflicted on the weavers. In a letter of 11 November 1768, the Board wrote that it was aware of the fact that because of the inhuman torture meted out to the weavers for the last several years, many of them have stopped weaving and left the profession by now.20 The extent of inhuman torture meted out to the weavers by the Company gomastas is well illustrated in J.S. Wise’s book Notes on Race, Caste and Tribes of Eastern Bengal. The incident referred to by Wise occurred in Dhaka in 1767. It was reported to Thomas Kelsal, the chief of the English factory at Dhaka, that one of the weavers there was selling muslin to the French. A peon was sent by Kelsal to arrest the weaver and bring him to the English factory. The said weaver suspecting this, had already taken shelter in the French factory. Kelsal then ordered the weaver’s relative to be arrested. That being done, the relatives were beaten up mercilessly. The helpless weaver, seeing no other way, then took shelter with the diwan. But alas! There was no respite there too. He was caned there at the order of the diwan and then handed over to the English factory. After 11 days in the English prison, he was taken round the street in Dhaka’s Nawabpur

172

SPINNING YARNS

on a donkey’s back, his head shaven and his face smeared with soot. Finally after three more days in the English prison, he was sent to the nawab for a trial where he was declared innocent and released immediately.21 Such torture on the weavers by the Company and its gomastas was quite common in the late eighteenth-century Bengal. One such event occurred in Dhamri, an important muslin aurung in Dhaka district where one Bhawani Shankar Mukherjee was the Company gomasta. He suspected that one of the Company weavers, Bancharam Mandal and his son were making cloth not only for the Company but for other customers too. The gomasta, Bhawani Shankar, sent two peons to bring both the errant weavers to the English factory, caned them severely and after smearing their faces with soot, made them walk around the whole aurung so that no one dared do such thing in future. In 1788 the weaver Nimdas of Sonamukhi in Bankura district had to face the same as Bancharam and his son did earlier.22 As such it can said that the weaver was in a much better position during the pre-Plassey period than he was in the later period. Whatever freedom or bargaining power he had enjoyed earlier, he lost them completely in the second half of the eighteenth century under the repressive and the exploitative machinery of the Company and its servants who were assisted in the process by their Indian gomastas. In recent years several scholars have shown graphically how the weavers were put under almost inhuman oppression and ruthless exploitation by the Company and its servants in the second half of the eighteenth century.23 That all the above is not at all exaggerated is corroborated by the anonymous author of an early nineteenth-century manuscript in the India Office records of the British Library which described the position of the weavers in Bengal in the late eighteenth century: The whole inland trade of the country and the provision of the company’s investment . . . became one continued scene of oppression, the baneful effects of which was felt by every weaver and manufacturer in the country, every article produced being made a monopoly in which the English arbitrarily decided what quantities of goods each manufacturer should deliver, and the prices he should receive from them. . . . Generally a number of weavers are registered in the books of the company’s gomastahs, and not permitted to work for any other persons, being transferred from one gomastah to another as

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

173

so many slaves, subject to the tyranny and roguery of every succeeding gomastah. The English with great strictness monopolised the weavers: their hardship is scarcely to be described. 24

Under the circumstances, the weavers were very reluctant to work for the Company and they tried to work for other European Companies or other customers surreptitiously. But that was not always possible because the gomastas’ men were very vigilant and kept an eye on them. If the gomastas had the slightest suspicion, they sent peons to the weavers’ cottages to see that they do not manufacture cloth for anyone except the Company. As such, many of the weavers left their habitations in order to escape the wrath of the gomastas. In this context, a much-told story has been mentioned earlier but it is difficult to say whether it is true or false. The story goes on to state that the Company servants and their gomastas began to cut off the thumbs of the most skilful weavers so that they won’t be able to manufacture cloth of exquisite beauty and this will bring about the downfall of the Bengal textile industry. It is strange that the story was published in a daily newspaper in Madras in 1922. It goes on like this: There was the following con­ versation among two senior police officers – one, the Director General of Police and the other a Superintendent of Police and a Congress volunteer which went on like the following:25 D.I.G:

[to the Congress volunteer] The cloth you are wearing was produced where? Isn’t it very thick? Volunteer: The cloth was produced in our village with locally spun yarn. D.I.G.: Your cloth is not at all of a good quality. The cloth made in England with English yarn is much better and soft than your cloth. Volunteer: If your people did not cut off the thumbs of our weavers, our cloth made by them would have been equally good and as your cloth sent from England. D.I.G.: Where did our people do that? Volunteer: In Dhaka. D.I.G.: [Looking at the SP]: Is that true? S.P.: Yes, it is written in history as such and it is true.

In this context it may be mentioned that in many areas of Bengal, especially among the people of Dhaka, it is ingrained that the textile

174

SPINNING YARNS

industry in Bengal was doomed because of the ruthless exploitation and inhuman treatment of the weavers by the Company, its servants and their gomastas. It was the general belief in Dhaka even in the 1920s that the chopped off thumbs of the weavers were thrown into a particular pond in Sonargaon. However, while writing his essay on the ‘Dacca Muslin Industry’ in 1925, Jogish Chandra Sinha categorically mentioned that he did not find any specific evidence to corroborate the story of the chopping off the thumbs of the weavers. But at the same time he made it clear that many of the old weavers and others who were involved in the production of muslin in Dhaka at the time and many of his students strongly believed that the English chopped off the thumbs of the skilful weavers.26 As a matter of fact the story of the chopping off of the thumb of weavers emanated from William Bolts who mentioned about the matter while writing about the condition of the silk weavers and spinners in Kasimbazar. He wrote that the silk spinners and weavers were so much oppressed and exploited by the Company, its servants and their gomastas that they chopped off their own thumb so that they would be spared from working for the Company, and thus escape the tyranny of the Company and the gomastas.27 Be that as it may, there is hardly any doubt that the textile industry in Bengal in the second half of the eighteenth century was on its way to doom. People started talking about it everywhere, so it was in popular perception and poetical compositions such as byanger bari tantir basha, kola byanger cha (the weaver’s cottage is now deserted, that is the abode of frogs) which actually depicts a picture where the weaver’s cottage which was his workshop is now in shambles so much so that it has now become the playground of frogs. NOTES 1. MSS. Eur. D 283, ff. 37-8, emphasis added. 2. Clive to Miran, 27 November 1759, Clive Mss. 269, no. 982. 3. For details, see, S. Chaudhury, The Prelude to Empire, pp. 63-80; From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 306-19. 4. Mss. Eur. G37, Box 32. 5. ‘Memories’ are not memoirs, they are actually the instructions and guidance for the successive Dutch Directors by the retiring Directors.

D E C L I N E O F T E X T I L E T R A D E A N D I N D U S T RY

175

6. For the Jagat Seths, see, S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 109­ 16. 7. S. Chaudhury, From Prosperity to Decline, pp. 249-59. 8. Om Prakash, ‘From Market-determined to Coercion-based Textile Manufacturing in Eighteenth Century Bengal’, in Giergio Riello and Tirthankar Roy (eds.), How India Clothed the World? 1500-1850, p. 225. 9. Dacca Commissioner I. Dunbar’s Report, Board Collection, no. 100122, 2 May 1844, India Office Records, British Library. 10. Principal Heads of the History and Statistics of Dacca District 1868, quoted in Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, p. 96. 11. Dunbar’s Report, Board’s Collection, no. 100122, 2 May 1844, quoted in Abdul Karim, Dhakai Muslin, pp. 107-9. 12. Ibid. 13. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 158. 14. Bolts, Considerations, pp. 191-3. 15. Ibid., p. 193. 16. N.K. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, p. 158. 17. Bolts, Considerations, p. 191. 18. Ibid., p. 193. 19. Verelst, A View of the Rise …., p. 58. 20. Letter from the Court, 11 November 1768; F WIHC, vol. V, para. 38, pp. 138-9. 21. Quoted in J.C. Sinha, Modern Review, April 1925, p. 407. 22. Hameeda Hossain, Company Weavers, pp. 84, 89. 23. Sinha, Economic History of Bengal, vol. 1, pp. 157-81; D.B. Mitra, Cotton Weavers, pp. 49-87; Hossain, Company Weavers, pp. 108-39. 24. Mss. Eur. D. 283, ff. 37-8, emphasis added. 25. J.C. Sinha, ‘The Dacca Muslin Industry’, Modern Review, 1925, pp. 406-8. 26. Ibid., p. 406. 27. Bolts, Considerations, pp. 194-5.

CHAPTER 13

Conclusion

engal textiles, especially muslins, had earned fame world­

B

wide from time immemorial. The muslins of Dhaka were highly appreciated right from Periplus down to Herodotus, Ptolemy, Pliny, Strabo, and others. Not only that, later on, well-known travellers and adventurers like the Arab geographer Sulaiman, the Chinese traveller Ma Huan, the Arab explorer Ibn Battuta, the English voyager Ralph Ficth and even Robert Orme, the official historian of the English East India Company were all struck with awe at the exquisite beauty and fine workmanship of Bengal muslins, and the formidable skill of the artisans of Bengal who manufactured muslins and other textiles. Orme went to the extent to state that it is a wonder how the Bengal artisans (weavers) could produce such beautiful fabrics with the help of very few and rudimentary tools with which the English weavers won’t be able to make even very thick cloth. He thought that neither the Europeans nor the British weavers or artisans had the skill or the efficiency that their Indian/Bengali counterparts possessed. The Dhaka muslins were so fine and thin that the Dutch traveller Stavorinus wrote that a 20-yard long muslin could be easily put into a snuff-box. The most interesting story of the ‘exquisitely delicate’ quality of muslin is perhaps that of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s daughter Jahanara Begum. One day the princess went to see her father in the darbar but seeing her the emperor became very angry and admonished her for ‘showing her skin through her clothes’ whereupon Jahanara remonstrated in her justification that she had worn seven

C O N C LU S I O N

177

‘jamas’ or suits on, obviously made of expensive and very fine Dhaka muslins. However, Bengal produced not only muslins but all types of textiles in the early modern era – like fine cotton cloth, medium quality fabric and also cheap coarse textiles besides silk and mixed piece-goods. All these were exported in large quantities not only to different parts of India but also to Central and West Asia as well as to parts of North Africa and even Europe. It is to be noted that Bengal had certain advantages over other areas of textiles production in India. First, it had a large number highly-skilled weavers and artisans; second, the cost of production was cheap because of the availability of raw materials; third, it had a very efficient and inexpensive riverine traffic system which made it possible to transport goods at a low price; and finally it had a flourishing agriculture which provided plenty of cheap staples like rice, cotton, yarn, etc. Most of the other places lacked all these facilities. Besides, the textile industry in Bengal had certain special characteristics which were not seen elsewhere. First, the textile industry in Bengal was basically a rural domestic handicraft industry. Robert Orme who lived in Bengal in the early 1750s noted that there was not a single village in Bengal where every man, woman and children were not engaged in making cloth. The weaver in Bengal was often a peasant or vice versa. As the textile industry here was a cottage handicraft industry, the peasant took to weaving in between agriculture or vice versa, i.e. the weaver would sometimes cultivate land. The spinning was done by the women in the weaver and farmer’s family. Even the children of the household helped in different ways in the production of cloth. It was only in the Coromandel, where like in Bengal, the textile industry was a rural domestic handicraft industry. Elsewhere in northern or western India, it was mainly confined to the urban areas or its neighbourhood. Another interesting characteristic feature of Bengal textile industry was that it was dispersed throughout the countryside. The reason for this was that it was basically a rural handicraft domestic industry and had the advantage of cheap transportation by riverine routes. As a result even though the aurungs or production centres were widely

178

SPINNING YARNS

dispersed, it was not difficult to procure textiles even from distant places. A third distinctive aspect of the Industry in Bengal was it’s localization. The main reason for this was the availability of raw material and the concentration of highly skilled and efficient work force in the area. For example, Dhaka was the most famous centre of production for muslins because of two factors. First, it was the only region where the best and the finest cotton was produced from which the best and finest quality thread was spun, which was essential for making the best quality muslins. Again it was Dhaka where there was a large concentration of highly skilled and extremely efficient weavers and artisans. Similarly, Murshidabad-Kasimbazar was the main centre of silk production and the craftsmen there could make the best quality silk textiles. Specialization was another characteristic of Bengal textile industry. The cloth produced in every aurung had its distinct mark on it and it was distinct from the cloth produced in other aurungs. Hence the price of the same type of cloth of the same length and breadth produced in two different aurungs varied to some extent. However, there were two other reasons for such differences – first, the difference in quality and second, the comparative skill of the artisans. Though the same type of cloth was produced in different aurungs of different regions, the cloth was named not only after the type it belonged to but also by the name of the aurung where it was produced. As for example, the muslin named khasa was produced in many aurungs but it was named after the aurung where it was produced such as khasa Malda, khasa Burron, khasa Jagannathpur, khasa Kagnmaria, etc. The extent to which specialization had reached in Bengal textile industry is amply reflected in Dhaka’s muslin industry. The best and the finest muslin was produced mainly in Junglebari-Bajitpur, Titabadi and Sonargaon. There was a lot of differences in the qualitative excellence of the muslins produced in these aurungs. For example, the muslin made in Junglebari-Bajitpur was of fine close texture, the one produced in Sonargaon was very thin and light and the one manufactured at Titabadi was ‘exquisitely delicate’. Again the best yarn was spun in Junglebari-Bajitpur because the yarn made there was very soft and delicate because of the high skill of the spinners

C O N C LU S I O N

179

there. As such the muslin produced with these yarns were acclaimed. Moreover in every aurung there were specialized washermen whose work was inimitable – such was their expertise and speciality. In this context it is to be noted that the price of muslin or any cloth for that matter depended on several things – the length and breadth of the cloth, its quality, the skill of the artisan who made it, and the aurung where it was produced. There had been no fundamental change in the production system and organization in Bengal textile industry in the early modern era. For ages, the weaver in Bengal made cloth at his cottage with the help of his wife and family. The cottage was his workshop or karkhana. Till the mid-eighteenth century, textiles were woven in Bengal in this traditional way. Here the division of labour was well-defined – the weaver was busy in weaving, the wife in spinning yarn and the children helped in different ways. In this individual system, a minimal capital and the family labour was enough to ensure production. Even in the early nineteenth century, the weaver could own a shed, a loom and a few ordinary tools for weaving by spending Rs. 20 only. A weaver family in Bengal was a self-sufficient production centre. However, besides the weaver family, it has been found in the records that sometimes head weavers or tanti sardars used to produce cloth by hiring of few other weavers. But there is no indication in contemporary records as to their exact role or position in the society. The dadni or advance system was an essential and traditional element of the Bengal textile industry. It was mandatory for customers to make a contract with the merchant-middlemen/dalals/paikars, etc., for supply of textiles by paying an advance to them. These people then went to the primary producers with the money and gave them necessary advances after drawing up a contract indicating the types and number of pieces to be supplied at an agreed rate and time. The main reason for the origin and extension of the dadni system was to enable the weaver to buy the raw materials for manufacture like cotton, yarn, etc., and also to sustain himself and his family for about six months when the cloth was being made. Second, taking advance from a buyer ensured that the weaver did not have worry about selling his wares in the market, his client had already committed to buy his produce. Again, big merchants and operators were more or less assured

180

SPINNING YARNS

that after giving the advance to the weavers/merchant middlemen/ dalals, they were more or less certain that they would not have to worry about the necessary supply in time. However, this traditional dadni system was completely different from the sixteenth/seventeenth German ‘verlagg’ system or the English ‘putting out’ system. In the European or English system, the weavers were supplied with necessary raw materials and the cash payment made out to them was only an advance against their wages. In the dadni system in Bengal, on the other hand, the weavers were in almost all cases given cash advance; advance in raw material was extremely rare to come by. Even in the royal karkhanas, the weavers brought their own yarn. But the most import difference was that while in Europe at all stages of production, the output belonged to the merchant-financier, in Bengal the weaver himself was the owner of his produce. Moreover, unlike in Europe or England, in Bengal he was the owner of the tools of production – his loom, the tools with which he made the cloth, etc. In the terminology of Max Weber, the Bengal/Indian weaver had not yet been reduced to the position of a ‘wage earner’, which means that the Bengal weaver did not sell his labour for money. There were three stages in the production of textiles – cultivation of cotton, spinning thread from cotton and weaving the cloth. The amount of cotton needed for manufacture was mostly produced in the province. Only a small amount was imported from Surat. The best cotton which was essential for making muslin was only produced in a small area on the west bank of river Meghna in Dhaka. The cotton produced here, named phooti, was better than any other type in the world. The production of cotton and the spinning was a parttime activity of the weaver-peasant family. But when demand was high, then weaving became a full-time job. Though weaving was a caste-based and hereditary occupation, spinning however was done by women from all sections of the society. Every woman, be they Brahmin, Kayastha, low caste or Hindu or Muslim, was engaged in spinning. The yarn for thick cloth was spun with the charkha and fine yarn with a spindle. The yarn had to be spun only at certain designated hours – generally from early morning to 9 or 10 in the

C O N C LU S I O N

181

morning and from around 3 or 4 in the afternoon to dusk. Preferred age for spinners was between 15 and 30 years. For weaving cloth there were several complicated stages: winding and preparing the thread; warping; applying the reed to the warp, fixing the warp to the loom, etc. After this the cloth was washed. After washing, a host of other workers had to work hard to prepare the cloth for sale. Of these people the nurdeahs arranged the threads that might have been displaced during the washing. Again, if the cloth has been damaged while washing, then the rafugars had to repair it. After this the istriwallahs ironed it and then packed it into bales. Then only it was ready for the market. To complete all these complex jobs, it took around six to seven months. Cultivation of mulberry trees for silk, spinning of cotton to yarn, etc., needed a few months more. In the history of the Bengal textile industry perhaps the most important aspect was the production of Dhaka muslin. During the Mughal rule, muslin for the use of the imperial household, the nobility and the Bengal nawabs was produced in the musbool khas cooties in the Dhaka district. The best and most expensive muslins were manu­ factured in these royal karkhanas. A daroga with the help of an assistant called mukim guarded the karkhanas. The most highly skilled weavers were registered with the karkhana. As mentioned, these weavers brought their own yarn for weaving. The mukim checked the quality of the thread and if it was not up to the mark, it was rejected. If the weaver was absent or if he was unwilling to work, guards were sent to fetch him. When the muslin making was complete, the daroga bought it from the weaver. Needless to say, the weaver did not get full value of the muslin as quite a bit of it was appropriated by the daroga and the mukim. With the discovery of the direct maritime route to India/Asia by Vasco da Gama in the late fifteenth century, the Portuguese earned huge profits by exporting spices to Europe from the Spice Islands in the Indonesian archipelago. This prompted the Northern Europeans to set up the East India Companies – the English East India Company and the Dutch East India Company – in the early seventeenth century. These Companies planned to go to the Spice Islands with silver

182

SPINNING YARNS

acquired from the ‘New World’ and buy spices with that silver. To their utter surprise that there was no demand for silver there, the main demand was for cheap coarse Indian cloth. So the Companies turned to Coromandel Coast in India with the objective of buying cloth from there and then export it to the Spice Islands. But after a while, trade there became risky and uncertain because of the constant warfare, political instability and perennial famines. Hence they turned to Bengal which could provide plenty of every type of cloth, including raw silk for which there was a lot of demand in the Italian silk industry and also an abundance of the best quality saltpetre at a very cheap price. So they established their factories in Bengal in the early 1650s. Thus the trade which began as a bilateral trade between Europe and the Spice Islands became trilateral (between Europe, India and Spice Islands) and then reverted to bilateral trade again from Europe to Bengal, and Bengal to Europe, in the mid-seventeenth century. But the trade from Bengal to Europe, especially trade in textiles which was the main export commodity later was not very significant till the 1680s. It was suddenly from the eighties of the seventeenth century that there was a sudden boom in the export of textiles from Bengal. This was, however, not because of the good quality and cheapness of Bengal textiles, which had been always like so. The real reason for such a sudden explosion for the demand for Bengal textiles was a revolutionary change characterized as ‘Indian craze’ or ‘Indienness’, etc., in the consumer taste of the people in England and Europe. Most of the people there suddenly became fashion-conscious to such an extent that everyone, right from the Lord and Lady down to the cooks, maids, servants, began to think that he or she was not ‘properly dressed’ unless he or she wore dress made of Indian/Bengal cloth, though these, being cheap, were earlier used only as shrouds. As a result there was a sudden boom in the demand for Bengal textiles in England and Europe in the 1680s. For long it has been held by most historians that it was the European Companies which was the major exporter of textiles from Bengal, and as such, the role of the Asian merchants in this respect was not that significant. The main reason for such assumption was perhaps the fact that it was quite easy to get quantitative as well as qualitative evidence in the European archives, whereas such information on the

C O N C LU S I O N

183

activities of the Asian merchants is not only hard to come by but sometime even impossible. Notwithstanding that, we have been able to find some not only qualitative but also quantitative data which indicate that the value and volume of the exports of the Asian merchants, especially in textiles and raw silk was much higher than those by the European Companies even in the mid-eighteenth century. While the annual average value of the textile exports by the Asians was around Rs. 10 to 11 million, the total value of the exports of all the European Companies joined together was between Rs. 5 and 6 million a year. This is actually borne out by the reports of the important Company officials in Bengals like Harry Verelst, Luke Scrafton, etc. The main props of the Bengal textile industry were the weavers and other artisans. But what was their actual condition? The Bengal weavers were not very mobile and were reluctant to work elsewhere. Even lucrative offers failed to make them willing to leave their home. But occasionally when there was a possibility of extortion by administrative officials, or the mahajan or even by the merchants, they fled from the villages for the time being. This was, however, an exception and not the rule. In fact, they enjoyed a lot of freedom. Though they had no formal education, they did not lack common sense about commercial matters. They did not hesitate to bargain with the buyers. They were free to manufacture any type of cloth they wanted to, could buy their own yarn, could sell their produce to any­ one they wanted to. However, we are not in a position to say what was their earning by weaving cloth. A weaver earned about Rs. 2½ to 3½ per month and their assistants around Rs. 1½ to 2½ a month. So far as the spinners are concerned, their income in a month was something like 12 to 14 annas, working part-time after their daily chores, while the highly skilled spinners working full-time earned around Rs. 3 per month. However, in the Company records, it is sometimes found that the economic condition of the weavers and other artisans was pathetic. But given the fact that there was a great demand for Bengal textiles and the freedom they enjoyed while manufacturing the cloth, in fixing their prices, bargaining with the buyers, or even could refuse to sell their wares to the buyers even after taking advances, it is difficult to believe in their ‘so-called’ poverty. Perhaps Robert Orme was right

184

SPINNING YARNS

when he wrote that the weavers preferred to look ‘poor’ in the eyes of the officials of administration so that they are spared of extortion by the latter. The opinion of a renowned historian that the ‘so-called’ poverty of the weavers is ‘an unidentified historical myth’ seems to be more rational because no definitive evidence has been found as yet on the subject. In this context it has to be kept in mind that like the peasantry, the weavers were not a homogeneous entity. Among them also, there were different categories – for example there were the head weavers under whom several weavers and helpers worked. Again there were rich and upper class weavers who manufactured cloth for the market by hiring labour with their own capital. Alongside, of course, there were small weavers who produced cloth in their own cottage with help from the family. Among these weavers again, there were some in distant parts, almost in isolation and in little contact with the outside world. Perhaps these were the people who lived in poverty. But it is undeniable that the position of the weavers in the pre-Plassey days was better than that of their compatriots in the postPlassey era. They were then not turned into slaves as their counterparts became in the period after Plassey. There is no end to the debate why had there been no technological innovation in the Bengal textile industry despite the huge demand for cloth in the pre-modern era. The question that arises is that when there was such a huge demand, which was unprecedented, by the Companies for Bengal textiles and the traditional organization of production was not equipped to face the challenge, why didn’t there evolve new technology to meet the challenge? Some people think that one of the reasons for this was that cheap labour was available in abundance in Bengal so that production could be increased even without raising production per person but by employing more labour which was easily and cheaply available. With this was added the fact that Bengal textile industry was marked by high specialization. And because of that, any attempt to bring about technological innovation would have necessitated excessive incentive. But when it is established that the European demand was not really so vast compared to the total production, it could be easily accommodated by extending the traditional system to some extent. That was why technological inno­ vation in the production organization was not so much imperative.

C O N C LU S I O N

185

Unfortunately, decline in this prosperous textile industry began in the second half of the eighteenth century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the spinning of cotton and weaving of cloth started with the help of steam operated machines. As a result, the yarn and fabric made in England with machines became much cheaper than those produced in Bengal with the traditional method. Thus the cheap yarn and cloth from England flooded the markets in Bengal. Moreover these goods were exempt from import duties before entering Bengal. On the other hand, heavy duties were levied on the Bengal yarn and textiles when exported. The result was that the market for Bengal commodities in England and Europe shrank considerably. But if duties were imposed for export of the English goods to Bengal, and if the Bengal goods were exempted from duties which was the practice earlier, especially the latter one, then perhaps the Bengal textiles could have competed successfully with their English coun­ terparts and the Bengal textile industry would not have declined and died. The Company government did not care about it; it was more concerned with the interest of England. But perhaps the most important factor which furthered the decline of the Bengal textile industry was the inhuman torture and cruel treatment perpetrated by the English Company and its servants along with their gomastas on the weavers and artisans of Bengal in the post-Plassey period.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

An Account of the

District of Dacca, 1801

By John Taylor, Commercial Resident of Dhaka

[India Office Records, British Library,

London, Home Misc. 456F]

Edited with Detailed Annotations by

Sushil Chaudhury

Editor’s Introduction

IMPORTANCE OF TAYLOR’S ACCOUNT John Taylor’s ‘Account of the District of Dacca’ contains a detailed report on the ‘Cloth Production in Dhaka’ in the pre-Colonial period. The longish report, covering folios 91 to 289 of the Home Misc. Series, 456F, is preserved in the India Office Records, British Library, London. It is an invaluable source for a critical study of the Bengal textile industry in the early modern era inasmuch as there is hardly any other contemporary material on the subject whether in vernacular literature or Persian chronicles. Taylor was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka and collected most of his material from authentic sources as will be revealed in the text that follows. Moreover, as a person present on the spot, he had detailed knowledge of the subject. Though he talks about Dhaka, his observations and reflections as also his depiction of the system of textile production are, in fact, applicable to the whole of Bengal. Hence his account is a gold mine for reconstructing the Bengal *The notes in the third bracket are those put by John Taylor in his original Mss. and the rest are incorporated by the editor.

190

APPENDICES

textile industry in the early modern era, especially in the absence of any authentic work on the subject. It’s a pity that though several noted scholars including, P.J. Marshall, K.N. Chaudhuri, Om Praksh et al. worked on the Bengal textile industry in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, hardly anyone ever consulted this important manuscript. I shall try to underline here the salient features of Taylor’s report, especially the system of textile production in the Mughal karkhanas in Bengal in particular, the details of the techniques of production, why was it that only Dhaka and the neighbouring areas could produce the best cotton as well as quality muslins, the earning of the weavers and artisans, etc. This will help us understand the different and complicated processes of cloth production in Bengal, and compare them with the situation in other parts of India. WHO WAS JOHN TAYLOR? John Taylor was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka who wrote An Account of the District of Dacca at the instance of the Board of Trade in Calcutta which, in its turn, was asked by the Court of Directors in London ‘to collect material for the use of the Company’s Historiographer’. Taylor was born in 1754 and baptised on 4December at St. Mary’s Carlisle, Scotland. He arrived in India on 20 July 1772 as a writer and joined as assistant to Secretary’s office. In 1774 he became the Persian translator to Calcutta Revenue Committee and in 1775 Assistant to Patna Factory and Factor with the same duties in 1775. He became assistant to the President of Board of Trade in 1779 and Junior Merchant and Commercial Resident at Kumarkhali in 1782. In 1783 he was Senior Merchant holding the same office. Then he became Commercial Resident at Dhaka in 1790. In 1802 he was appointed Member, Board of Trade and Export House Keeper, and died on 14 March 1809 at sea in Bengal. CONTENTS OF TAYLOR’S ACCOUNT The account deals with the following subjects: 1. An account of the public buildings in Dhaka 2. An account of the malbus khas (royal apparel or finest muslins) sent to the Mughal emperor at Delhi 3. An account of the Europeans settled at Dhaka 4. An estimate of the Dhaka export trade in cloth in the year 1747

APPENDIX 1

191

5. Statement of the cotton goods manufactured at Dhaka for exportation for 1747 and 1797 6. An account of the coppas (kapas/cotton), thread and fabrics of Dhaka and the estimated capacity of the Dhaka looms to export cotton goods 7. Process of weaving muslin 8. An estimate of the population of Dhaka. HOW AUTHENTIC IS TAYLOR’S ACCOUNT? There is little doubt that Taylor’s report is quite authentic inasmuch as he had collected most of his material from people who had first-hand knowledge of the textile production in Bengal. Taylor himself states that as there was hardly any information about the state of textile industry in Dhaka prior to 1760 because of the fact that the Custom House in Dhaka was closed down long back and its records all destroyed. So he asked for the assistance of Nawab Nusrat Jung if the latter could help him to collect some information on the subject from his nizamat records and from people who were involved in the textile industry. The nawab did not disappoint Taylor and supplied him the necessary material as much as he could. He also introduced to Taylor two brokers/merchants who were long connected with the English Company’s business in Dhaka. They provided a lot of relevant information to Taylor. Of the above items, item nos. 1 to 3 is based on the Tarikh-i-Nusratjungi written by Nawab Nusrat Jung who was the naib-nazim of Dhaka from 1788 to 1822. Item no. 4, which is extremely important in assessing the role of the Europeans vis-à-vis the Asian merchants in the export trade of Bengal, was based on the materials supplied by two former dalals (brokers) of the East India Company, Muktaram Royjee and Hari Singh, who served the Company from the forties through the seventies of the eighteenth century. Besides, Taylor was himself present on the spot working with the people involved in the textile industry and thus had the opportunity to get detailed information from the local artisans. SALIENT FEATURES OF TAYLOR’S ACCOUNT The Mughal Practice Production of mulboos khas cooties (factories or sheds for making royal clothing):

192

APPENDICES

There is a detailed description of the working of the royal karkhanas where high quality cloth was produced exclusively for the royalty and the nobility which highlights some interesting features of the production organizations in the early eighteenth century. According to Taylor, under the Mughal government, mulboos khas cooties were established in Dhaka, Sonargaon, and Junglebarry. These ‘cooties’ were supervised by the government officials called darogas whose duty was to inspect the manufacture of all the cloth made for royal use. Sheds were erected in Dhaka, Sonargaon and Junglebarry for the weavers and their looms. The best weavers were selected, registered and compelled to attend regularly at the appointed hours. Officials called mokeems (mukims) daily inspected, on behalf of the darogas, the thread which the weavers brought for the looms and, as Taylor points out, ‘none was permitted to be used until it had been previously compared with established samples’. Peons were set on the weavers if they did not attend and weavers punished if they attempted to abscond. After giving the said details, Taylor commented that none of the weavers worked willingly in the mulboos khas cooties ‘on account of the inadequate profit which the cloths yielded them’. At the same time he added that the constant practice of weaving such cloth ‘might have highly advanced the skill of the weavers’. WHAT EMERGES FROM THE ABOVE? Several important characteristics of the organization of textile industry emerge from the above. These are: 1. It is of significance that even in the royal karkhanas, the weavers brought their own yarn. If that was so, in case of private or commercial manufacture, it is beyond doubt that the weavers brought their own yarn. So even in the dadni or advance system, there was certainly no advance in yarn or raw material – only a cash advance was made to the weavers. 2. The implication of the statement that the ‘weavers’ inadequate profit’ in the royal karkhanas was that the weavers were not ‘wage workers’ even there. IMPLICATIONS OF THE ABOVE It follows from Taylor’s description that in all probability the cloth produced

by the weavers was bought by the daroga of the karkhana for the royalty or

APPENDIX 1

193

the nobility. In the process, however, the weaver did not get the full price of his produce; quite a bit of it was pocketed by the daroga, mukim and other officials. The fact of the matter is confirmed by John Taylor who stated that during nawab Sirajuddaullah’s time, while the jamdanis (an expensive muslin) were charged @ Rs. 250 per piece, the weaver actually received Rs. 150 only, the rest being appropriated by the officials. Another important feature of the structure of the textile industry that emerges from Taylor’s report is that even in the case of the jamdanis made for the imperial household in the sadar mulboos khas cootie at Dhaka, advances in cash were paid to the weavers. This only confirms the fact that dadni was very much a traditional system – it was nothing new which could be associated with the increase of the European demand in the second half of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, as is generally held by some historians.

BACKGROUND OF TAYLOR’S REPORT John Taylor’s Account with a forwarding letter dated 30 November 1800 and a post-script dated 2 November 1801 is to be found in Home Misc. Series, vol. 456F in the India Office Records, British Library, London. It was when he was the Commercial Resident of Dhaka that Taylor wrote ‘An Account of the District of Dacca’ at the instance of the Board of Trade in Calcutta which was asked by the Court of Directors in London ‘to collect material for the use of the Company’s Historiographer’. So after finishing his report, he sent it to the Board of Trade in Calcutta. About the authenticity of Taylor’s account, there can’t be any doubt as he had collected most of his material from people who were actively involved in the textile trade and production in Bengal. Among the contents of Taylor’s Account, item nos. 1 to 3 (an Account of the Public Buildings in Dhaka, an account of the malbus khas sent to the Mughal emperor at Delhi and an account of the Europeans settled at Dhaka respectively) are based on the Tarikh-i-Nusratjungi written by Nawab Nusrat Jung who was the naib-nazim of Dhaka from 1788 to 1822. In his forwarding letter, the Commercial Resident discussed the sources of his information. One of the sources was the Tarikh-i-Nusratjungi written by Nawab Nusrat Jung, the naib nazim of Dhaka from 1788 to 1822. The nawab states in the preface of the Tarikh that the book was written at the instance of his ‘English friends’, in all probability the friend being none other than the Commercial Resident of Dhaka, John Taylor. As item nos.

194

APPENDICES

1, 3 and 9 are not relevant for an analysis of the Bengal textile industry, we are not taking them into account for our discussion. Other items, namely nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are invaluable for an understanding of the nature and structure of the Bengal textile industry in the early modern era. As such we take up those aspects for a proper analysis. Some of the materials for writing about these aspects, especially about the export trade of Dhaka Cloth in 1747, were collected, as John Taylor informs us, from two former dalals (brokers) of the East India Company, Muktaram Royjee and Hari Singh, who served the Company from the ‘forties through the ‘seventies of the eighteenth century, at mentioned earlier. Besides, Taylor was himself was present on the spot working with the people and thus had the opportunity to get detailed information from local residents. While editing the manuscript, I kept the original spellings or punctuation as to be found in Taylor’s manuscript. Only the abbreviations have been altered to their original forms. The footnotes appended by the author are kept in their order. But when I inserted my own footnotes or added something in the body of the text, they are put within square brackets. TAYLOR’S BAPTISM CERTIFICATE St. Maries Carlisle.

Christening

1754. Dec 4th Taylor John son of Mr Taylor Surgeon and Apoth in the

Scotch-Street bapt.

This is the true copy of the Parish Register of the St Maries Carlisle in

the County of Cumberland taken by 22 of November 1754.

By me Robert Simpson Curator of St. Maries TAYLOR’S EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATE These are to certify that John Taylor has gone through a regular course of Arithmetic and Merchants Accounts. Thomas Bracke Greenwich Academy October 1st, 1770

APPENDIX 1

195

TAYLOR’S APPLICATION TO THE E.I. COMPANY FOR JOB To the Hon’ble the Court Directors of the United East India Company The Humble Petition of John Taylor Sheweth That your Petitioner having received a regular Education in Writing and Accounts humbly presumes himself qualified to serve your Honours abroad. He therefore humbly prays your Honours would be pleased to appoint him a Writer at one of your Settlements in the East Indies, where he promise to discharge his Duty with the greatest Diligence and Fidelity & is ready to give such a Security as yours Honours shall require. And your Petitioner shall ever pray &ca. John Taylor MAIN TEXT OF TAYLOR’S REPORT FORWARDING LETTER Peter Speke Esq.

President & ca, Members of the Board of Trade Gentlemen.

1st. I duly received your letter of the 6 February, 1798, accompanied with a copy of the 115th paragraph of a letter from the Hon’ble Court of Directors, dated the 9th May, 1797 directing me, in obedience to the orders of Government, to furnish such information, as I might be able to collect on the subjects noticed by the Hon’ble Court. 2nd. The records of the factory furnishing no information of any kind prior to the year 1760, the Custom House having been many years ago abolished; and its records removed, and only one or two old Delolls [dalals or brokers] remaining, capable of affording any information on the state of internal and foreign trade, in former times, and of which their recollection was very imperfect, I had recourse to the assistance of the Nabob Nuserut Jung [Nawab Nusrat Jung], the Naib Nazim of this place, whom I acquainted with the substance of the orders, contained in the 115th paragraph of the Honble Court of Directors letter, thinking it probable that the Nizamut records in the Nabob’s [Nawab’s] possession, or the papers, or memory of aged persons in his employment, might be advantageously referred to on this occasion. I begged the favour of the Nabob [Nawab] to permit them to be consulted, and to communicate to me whatever useful information might be collected, on any of the points, particularly the manufactures and the former state of the internal foreign trade of this province [meaning

196

APPENDICES

Dacca], on which I had requested him to make enquiry. The Nabob [Nawab] very obligingly undertook to have every source of information, within his power, explored, and after some time had elapsed, he sent me a little volume, containing an abridgment of historical events which had taken place in Bengal since the year 983 of the Hegira (1575) when Monem Khan [Munim Khan Khan-i-Khanan],1 on the part of the Emperor Akbar, having expelled the usurper Daood [Daud Khan Karrani], re-annexed Bengal to the empire. To this abridged history, compiled by the Nabob’s [Nawab’s] servants, from the histories of Jehangeer [Jahangir], Alumgeer [Alamgir, i.e. Aurangzeb], &ca, and continued to the Natob’s [Nawab’s] own accession to the Niabut of Dacca, was added by himself, 1st, an account of the Publick [sic] building at Dacca, and of their founders. 2nd, an account of the Mulboos Caus [malbus khas or the royal apparel meaning the finest muslin] and other articles sent annually from Dacca, through Jaffier Khan [Jafar Khan, better known as Murshid Quli Khan2] to the Emperor Aurung Zebe [Aurangzeb]; and 3rd, an account of the settlement of Europeans at Dacca. The Nabob [Nawab] informed me at the same time that the volume contained all the information he could collect, that most of the antient [sic] records belonging to the Nizamut, including those of the Custom House, had been destroyed, during the disorders that prevailed on the recapture of Dacca from Cossim Aly Khan’s [Qasim Ali Khan i.e. Mir Qasim3] people in 1760, and that no persons, dependent on him, were capable of affording on the subjects, recommended to his enquiry, any useful information whatever, I availed myself of the first leisure, which I had [,] to translate the book, which with an exception of the three subjoined articles of information I found to contain little more than a brief account of the succession of the different Subahs, [subahdars] who, since the year 983 of the Hegira (1575) had governed Bengal, and of the principal events of their respective governments, together with an account of the Naib Nazims who, on the part of the Subahs [meaning subahdars], had resided at Dacca, since the succession of Sirfruz Cawn [Sarfaraz Khan, subahdar of Bengal, 1739-40]4 to the Subadarry [subahdary] in 1151 of the Hegira (1738) [actually 1739]. The whole had been drawn up with much want of attention to accuracy in respect to dates. And on my mentioning afterwards to the Nabob [Nawab] this disagreement of many of the dates, in his book with the dates of the same facts recorded in the English accounts of the history of the country, he desired I would return the book, and promised to have it revised and corrected. The Nabob [Nawab], sometime after, sent to me another book on a more enlarged plan compiled from the histories of Akbar, and Jehangeer [Jahangir], the history of Bengal, and of the Syreal-Motakereen [Seir-ul-Mutaqherin of Gholam Husain Khan]5

APPENDIX 1

197

and commencing with the conquest of Bengal by the Emperor Humacoon [Humayun] in the year of the Hegira 945 (1538). This book I also translated, but except, that it commenced from an earlier date, that the narrative was more circumstantial and connected, and that it had fewer inaccuracies, in regard to dates, it differed not from the first book. The Nabob [Nawab] afterwards sent to me a sort [of a] chronological table of events, from the reconquest of Bengal by the Emperor Akbar in 983 of the Hegira (1575) to the death of the Emperor Aurung Zebe [Aurangzeb], in 1118 (1706) [in fact 1707] which, by enabling me to supply dates to one part of the abridged history, to the events of which no dates had been annexed, consequently rendered the book more perfect than it was before. But as the events recorded in this book are already before the public; as the book contains no information whatever ‘on the Geography, Government, Laws, the progressive stages of the useful Arts, Manufactures, Sciences, and the fine Arts, and particularly on the former and present state of internal and foreign trade’, and, as, respecting the remaining subjects, ‘chronology, and Political Revolutions’,6 on which information is desired by the Hon’ble Court of Directors, whatever is contained in the book on those points is probably not entirely to be depended on; I forbear to trouble the Hon’ble Court with a work, from the perusal of which no satisfactory information could be obtained. The three accounts subjoined to the history, having possibly the advantage of novelty to recommend them, and two of them being connected with the subject of inland and foreign trade, will perhaps not be unacceptable. Under the influence of this impression, I transmit the under-mentioned papers. N. 1. Translate [sic] of an account of the public buildings at Dacca. N. 2. Ditto ditto of Malboos Caus [Malbus Khas], and other articles sent annually from Dacca, through Jaffer Khan [Jafar Khan] (afterwards Subadar of Bengal) to the Emperor Aurung Zebe [Aurangzeb]. N. 3. Ditto ditto of the settlement of Europeans at Dacca. 3rd, One of the delolls [dalals] alluded to in the second paragraph of this letter, named Royjee, a respectable old man, seventy nine years of age, the only survivor of the five delolls [dalals] through whom, prior to the year 1774, the Company’s investment used to be provided, after much search among old papers, brought me accounts, which afforded me some, though an indistinct, insight into the state of the export trade of Dacca at different periods from 1774 [correctly 1747]. From these accounts I have prepared. N. 4. An estimate of the Dacca export trade in cloths in the year 1747 to which I have subjoined notes which contain the substance of Royjees information relative to the period, preceding and following that year, which

198

APPENDICES

is selected, as being the year of all the others, on which Royjees accounts were most full, and also of information obtained of Hurry Sing [Hari Singh], aged sixty-nine years, brother to the late Bandoo Singh, one of the Company’s five Delolls [dalals], who assisted Royjee, since dead, in the preparation of the preceding accounts. 4th. That a comparison may be made with the former and present state of the Dacca export trade, I transmit the under-mentioned papers. N. 5. Statement of the goods manufactured at the Dacca aurungs [manufacturing centres], for exportation, from 1790 to 1799, inclusive, a period of ten years. N. 6. Comparative account of the Dacca export trade in 1747 & 1797. 5th. In order that the information now communicated on the subject of the trade of this province may be rendered as complete as the materials in my possession will admit of, I also transmit the following. N. 7. An account of the coppas [karpas or country cotton], thread and fabrics of the Dacca province, and of the estimated ability of the present state of the Dacca aurungs in regard to the amount of goods which can be annually provided at them. N. 8. Process of weaving plain and flowered muslins as practised by the weavers of Dacca, classed under the following heads, and accompanied with drawing, containing seven figures to explain the descriptions. 1. Sorting and preparation of thread. 2. Laying of the warp. 3. Applying the warp to the end roll of the loom, and preparing it for the reed. 4. Applying the reed to the warp. 5. Preparation of the harness. 6. Description of the loom, and process of weaving plain cloths. 7. Process of weaving Jamdannies, or flowered cloths. 6th . I likewise transmit musters7 of the finest Dacca thread now procurable viz. 1 rutty [rati], containing 140 hauts [hats or cubits], of 19¾ inches per haut; costing at the rate of sicca rupees 3/8- per sicca weight. 5 ditto 130 ditto, ditto, ditto, sicca rupees 3/­ 7th. I regret that, from the want of superior means of intelligence it has not been in my power to furnish the Hon’ble Court of Directors with information better calculated to answer the purposes of their enquiries. Dacca Factory I have the honour to be &ca 30th November, 1800 (signed) J. Taylor Resident

APPENDIX 1

199

Postscript 2nd, November, 1801. After I had prepared the preceding letter, and the papers to which it refers, I was desirous of subjoining to N. 1. some accounts of the present and antient [ancient] limits of the City of Dacca, and an estimate of the present state of the population of the city. This latter information, however, was not, at that time, procurable from any authority on which I could depend. In January I went to Calcutta, where I remained on public business, till the middle of August. I returned here early in September, and from that time, till lately, I have been incessantly occupied with the settlement of the new investment. As soon as I obtained leisure from more immediately urgent business, I employed it, in carefully revising this letter, and its accompaniments. I have found occasion from further and fuller information, to make several alternations and additions to N.7. And Mr. Melville the City Magistrate, having today obligingly furnished me with a public document of the population of the city, as ascertained by a local investigation, made by the public officers in March last given of the limits of the present city, and a note, which I have subjoined, explaining what was necessary to be added, shew [sic] the limits of the antient [ancient] city; I have pleasure to transmit herewith a copy of the said document N. 9, persuaded that it will prove an acceptable addition to the information contained in the other papers to which the letter refers. (Signed) J.Taylor Resident N. 2. Account of the Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas], and other articles, sent annually from Dacca through Jaffier Khan Dewan (afterwards Subadar) of Bengal, to the Emperor Aurung Zebe [Aurungzeb], translated from an account received from the Nabob Nuserut Jung, the Naib-Nazim of Dacca. Mulboos Caus From the Aurung of Dacca 100 pieces of Jamdannies or cloth flowered in the loom @ 250 ARS[Arcot Rupees) ………….. Charges washing, dressing &ca …………………… 50 pieces cloths flowered in silk chikon @ 200 ARS per piece ……………………………… Charges washing, dressing & ca. ……………………

Rs. 25,000 Rs. 1,000 Total: Rs. 26,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 280 Total: Rs. 10,280

200

APPENDICES

60 Rezas (or small pieces) flowered in silver @100ARS per piece ……………………………….. Charges washing, dressing & ca …………………… From the Aurung of Causnagar (Sonargaon) 100 pieces plain cloths at 200 ARS per piece …… Charges washing, dressing &ca. …………………

Rs. 20,000 Rs. 2,800 Total: Rs. 22,800 Rs. 1,600 Rs. 150-4 Total: Rs. 1,750-4

20 pieces Sarbands at 80 ARS per piece …………… Charges washing, dressing &ca. ………………….... From the Aurung of Bazetpore 100 pieces of plain cloths at 200 ARS per piece ……. Charges washing, dressing etc. ……………………. From the Aurung of Junglebary 100 pieces plain cloths @100 ARS per piece ……… Charges washing, dressing &ca …………………….

Rs. 20,000 Rs. 1,050-12 Total: Rs. 21,050-12 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 1,000 Total: Rs. 11,000 Grand Total: Rs. 99,080-52

Other articles Ottor [atar] of Naugissore 100 tolas ……………………. Shields 50 @ 16 Rs. ……………………. Ornamenting them …………………….. Covering 100 sticks (made at Narraindea) with gold thread ……………………................... 200 small punkhas [fans] made with the leaves of Palmyra tree ……………………............... Covering & Ornamenting them …..............

Rs. 6,000 Rs. 200 Total: Rs. 6,200

Rs. 260.00 Rs. 800.00 Rs. 2,680.00 Total Rs. 3,480.00 Rs. 4,850. 12.­ Rs. 200.00 Rs. 4,000.00 Total: Rs. 4,200.00 Rs. 5,000.00 Rs. 11,000.00

Gold Badla ……………………....................................... Silver Badla ……………………....................................... Making the total amount Mulboos Caus and other articles sent to the Emperor and for which the Sircar (or Government) was debited…………………….......................... Total Rs. 127,871 -12 A True Translate (Signed) J. Taylor Resident

APPENDIX 1

201

N. 3.

Account of the Settlement of Europeans at Dacca translated from an account received from the Nabob Nuserut Jung, the Naib-Nazim of Dacca.8 N. 4 Estimate of the amount of Cloth exported from Dacca, in the year 17479 on the under-mentioned accounts, prepared from papers and information, received from Royjee Deloll (79 years of age), one of the five Delolls, employed in the provision of the Company’s investment, at Dacca, prior to the establishment of gomastas in 1774, with notes by the Resident, partly from the said authority, and partly after Royjee’s death, from the information of an old deloll, Hurry Singh, who had assisted Royjee in forming this account. The Emperor at Delhi, for use of the Emperor ………… Rs. 100,000.00 The Nabob at Moorshedabad, for the use of the Nabob and his Court ………………………………………….. Rs. 300,000.00 Juggat Seat the great banker of Moorshedabad for Home consumption …………………………………….. Rs. 150,000.00 Turranies [Turani merchants] for the consumption of the upper Provinces ………………………………….. Rs. 100,000.00 Pattans [Pathan merchants} Do Do Rs. 150,000.00 Armenians for the Bussora [Basra], Mocha and Judda [Jedda] market …………………………………………... Rs. 500,000.00 Moguls [Mughal merchants] partly for home, partly for foreign consumption, Bussora, Mocha, Judda market .. Rs. 400,000.00 Hindoos for home consumption ………………………… Rs. 200,000.00 English Company for Europe ………………………….... Rs. 350,000.00 English individuals supplied for foreign markets ……… Rs. 200,000.00 French Company for Europe ……………………………. Rs. 250,000.00 Dutch Company for Europe …………………………….. Rs. 100,000,00 Estimated prime cost of Dacca goods: Rs. 28, 50, 000

(a) Jamdannies, or Cloths flowered in the loom, cloth flowered in silk chicon, Rezas or narrow pieces of cloths flowered in silver, Seerbunds and plain Cloths, all of the finest fabrics, goods to this amount were annually sent to Delhi. (b) All fine goods, Cloths to a certain amount, were annually sent to Moorshedabad; never less than a lac, or a lac and half.

202

APPENDICES

(c) Fine and Coarse Cloths, to the amount of about a lac, were annually sent to Juggut Seat (Jagat Seth). (d) Fine Cloths, superfine and fine-superfine Terrendams, small striped Dooreas, Abroahs (Ab-i-rawan) and Sublums (Shabnam) for peshwasses/ dresses, Cogzie Dooreas, and superfine Sublums. No Cloths flowered by embroiderers, nor Jamdannies. The latter was monopolized for the use of the King, the Nabob, and Juggut Seat. The Toorannies exported from 1732 to 1747 inclusive, a period of fifteen years, fifteen lacs of Dacca cloths. At the end of 1747 year of the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah their trade ceased. (e) Assortments the same as the Toorannies, the Pattans [Pathans] exported from 1737 to 1747 inclusive, a period of ten years, fifteen lacs of Dacca goods. Their trade ceased at the end of the year 1747. (f ) Low period goods, Baftaes, Seerbunds, Mamudhiatties, coarse Muslins &ca Cloths were annually exported to a certain amount, never less than two or three lacs. (g) Fine and coarse but principally the latter. The former for home the latter for foreign consumption, Cloths were annually exported to an amount of not less than two lacs of rupees. (h) Principally low period goods, worn by the natives. Cloths were annually exported to an amount of not less than a lac of rupees. (j) Assortments of various kinds, fine and coarse. The English Company exported annually from Dacca, until the Capture of Calcutta in 1756, goods to the amount of three and an half lacs of rupees. After the accession of the Nabob Jaffier Aly Khan [Mir Ja’far] the Company’s export considerably increased, since that period from six to eight lacs of Cloths have been annually exported by the Company from Dacca. (k) Fine and coarse assortments. (l) Principally fine Cloths, Dooreas, Charconnahs, Tanjebs Jungle, Seehaudconnas, Nyansooks, superfine and fine superfine Terrendams and some arundy, low priced Tanjebs. The French Company exported from 1746 to 1765 inclusive, a period of ten years to the amount of twenty-eight and a half lacs, and from 1765 to 1771 inclusive, a period of seven years, to the amount of nine and an half lacs of cloths. (m) Fine and coarse assortments. (n) All kinds [of ] Cloths were annually exported to this amount more or less. Dacca Factory 30th November, 1800. (Signed), J. Taylor Resident.

203

APPENDIX 1

N. 5 Abstract of the goods manufactured at the Dacca aurungs for exportation from 1790 to 1799 inclusive formed from the annual reports made by the Commercial Resident at Dacca to the Board of Trade. Years

Private trade as transmitted by the Resident

Company’s trade received from the aurungs

Total per statement annually

Sicca Rs.

Sicca Rs.

Sicca Rs.

1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799

14,91,109-14-6 10,80,893-6-2 10,11,103-2-0 6,89,926-10-0 4,13,656-2-0 6,62,069-3-0 6,48,781-13-0 8,94,157-0-0 6,39,948-0-0 7,52,450-0-0

7,45,548-8-7 4,01,121-2-11 6,37,096-12-10 5,78,286-2-12 4,60,706-15-9 5,16,093-3-1 5,52,171-9-1 5,07,388-6-11 4,39,799-13-112 5,03,710-15-7

22,36,658-7-1 14,82,014-9-1 16,48,199-14-10 68,212-10-2 8,74,363-1-9 11,78,162-6-1 12,00,953-6-1 14,01,545-6-11 10,79,747-13-11 12,56,160-15-7

Total

82,84,095-2-8

53,41,913-8-10

1,36,26,018-11-6 Dacca Factory. 30th November, 1800. (Signed) J. Taylor. Resident.

N. 6 Comparative Statement of the Aurung cost of Cloths exported from Dacca, in the years 1747 and 1797 on the undermentioned accounts 1747 Arcot Rupees The Emperor at Delhi The Nabob at Moorshedabad Juggut Seat Do Toorannies Pattans Armenians Moguls Hindoos

1,00,000 3,00,000 1,50,000 1,000,00 1,50,000 5,00,000 4,00,000 2,00,000

-----­ --} --}= --}

1797 Arcot Rupees

6,37,025 - -

204

APPENDICES

------­ 3,50,000 - 2,00,000 - 2,50,000 - ­ 50,000 - ­ 1,00,000 - ­

Greeks English Company Ditto Individuals French Company Ditto Individuals Dutch Company

28,50,000 - -

5,07,388-6-11 2,57,136-0-0

14,01,545-6-11

Dacca Factory. 30th November, 1800. (Signed) J. Taylor. N. 7 Account of the fine Cotton, Thread and Fabrics produced in the Dacca Province, and of the ability of the Dacca Aurungs in regard to the amount of goods which can be annually provided at them. Cotton10 Notwithstanding the vast extent of land, comprised within the Dacca province, a very small proportion of it is appropriated to the cultivation of fine coppas (cotton not separated from the seed) although there are not wanting numerous situations, in various districts, which are to all appearance, perfectly well adapted for it. Owing to some disadvantages of soil, several of the aurungs, or districts where Cloths are manufactured, grow little or no cotton for the Support of their Fabrics, drawing their Supplies from other parts of the Province. A Tract of land extending from Fringybuzar [Feringibazar], twelve Miles south east of Dacca, along the Banks of the Megna to Idlepore [Idilpur], twenty miles north of the Sea, occupying a space of about forty Miles in length, and in some places, as far as three in breadth, situated in the purgunnas (parganas) Kederpore, Bickrumpore, Rajenagur, Cartickpore, Serampore, and Idlepore, is allowed to produce the finest coppas, grown within the Dacca province, and, I believe, I might add, in any part of World, since no Cotton that has been yet compared with it, whether the produce of India, or of the Islands of Mauritius or Bourbon, whose Cotton is celebrated for its superior quality, has been found equal to it, and in no other quarter of the Globe, as far as I have been able to collect information on these Subjects, is cotton of the quality of the Dacca Coppas, known. The Superiority of the

APPENDIX 1

205

Coppas of the abovementioned districts is attributed to their vicinity to the Sea, the Water of which mixing as the Tide rolls it in, with the Water of the Megna, which overflows that part of the Country, during three Months of the year, deposits as it subsides, Sand, and Saline Particles, which very considerably improve and fertilize the Soil, which consists of light and brown Earth. It is also thought, that the freshness of the Sea Air may have some beneficial effect, in nourishing the plantations of Coppas. The tract of land abovementioned from Fringybuzar [Feringibazar] to Idlepore [Idilpur], the Banks of the Luckia [Lakshya river] from the Delaserry River [Dhaleswary river] to a little above Roofgunge [Rupganj], an extent of about sixteen Miles, and a few Miles of the Banks of the little Burrumpoota [Brahmaputra], north of the Delassery [Dhaleswary], furnish the greater part of the Coppas used in the Dacca Province. Of the rest some is grown in Buldecaul [Baldakhal, a pargana in modern Dacca district], Bowal [Bhowal in Dacca], and Alefsing [Alapsing, a pargana in modern Mymensingh district], and some is imported from Boosna [Bhushna, a pargana in modern Jessore district], in the adjoining province of Rajeshy [Rajshahi]. The Cotton Seed is sown in October and November, and produces in April and May. The plants grow three to four feet in height. They are rooted up after the crop is gathered, and before the next sowing, in October and November, the same land equally furnishes a crop of Paddy. Cotton continues to be sown in low land for two or three years successively. The fourth year the land either lies fallow, or is appropriated to some other crop. A bega [bigha] of Ground containing eighty hauts [hat=cubit] square, requires 2 seers 4 chataks of Seed. If the Season be favourable a bega [bigha] will produce two maunds of Coppas. A Seer of Coppas, weighing 80 sicca weight is calculated to consist of 65 sicca weight of seed, and fifteen of Cotton of different qualities. About a third of the Cotton, that part which adheres most to the Seed, is capable of being spun into the finest Thread. Another part is fit for making Thread of inferior degrees of flneness, and a third for coarse Thread only. Thread Thread for coarse assortments is spun by a Wheel, for fine, by a Spindle. Thread is made at all the Aurungs, but the greatest quantity, and with a few exceptions the best, is spun at Junglebarry Bazetpore [Junglebari, in modern Mymensingh district Bazetpur (or Bayazidpur) in Dacca], the fabrics of which Aurngs, from the greater skill, with which the thread is prepared, possess a peculiar softness. The highest priced Thread, at present procurable

206

APPENDICES

is from sicca rupees 3 to 3/8 per sicca weight. The heat of the climate will not admit of Thread of that quality being spun, but at particular hours, usually from half an hour after daylight, till nine or ten in the morning and from three or four in the afternoon till half an hour before sunset. Of Spinners of this sort of Thread there are, in all not above thirty; three in the Dacca, six or seven in the Sonargong [Sonargaon], and about twenty in the Junglebarry Bazetpore Aurung. Eight annas weight of such Thread can be spun in a Month, by one Spinner, if she gives up all her time to spinning, but Spinners generally having other duties, besides that of spinning to attend to, it seldom happens that more than three hours are appropriated, in any one Day, to the spinning of this sort of Thread, and the average quantity obtainable, in a Month, from each Spinner is therefore not estimated higher than a quarter of a sicca weight. At this rate thirty women make, in a month, seven and an half sicca weight, and, in a year, ninety sicca weight of the finest Thread, each Rutty (rati) (of which six make an anna or sixteenth part of a Sicca11 Rupee equal to about two fifths of an ounce) containing from one hundred and forty hauts [hat = cubit] of Thread, each haut [hat] measuring nineteen and an half inches. Fabrics The most beautiful plain Fabrics, manufactured in the Dacca Province, are made at the Aurungs of Juglebarry Bazetpor [Junglebari, Bazitpur] and Sonargong [Sonargaon]. The Weavers of the former12 excel in manufacturing Muslins of a close texture, the weavers of the latter Aurung in making thin and clear Muslins. The finest plain Muslin called Mulboos Caus [malbus khas]/Royal Clothing/ which before the fall of the Mogul Government used to be manufactured at those Aurungs is stated in No. 1 to have cost two hundred Arcot Rupees per piece. But though this price was allowed by the Emperor, I was assured at Junglebarry [Junglebari] in 1771, by some Weavers of that Aurung who had thirty years before made Cloths for Delhi, that only one hundred and fifty Rupees were paid to the Weavers, fifty Rupees per piece being with held by the Nabob’s officers.13 Being desirous of ascertaining the extent of perfection to which the art of weaving plain muslins could be then /1790/ carried by the Weavers of Junglebarry [Junglebari], I personally made engagements, during my stay at that Aurung with Weavers selected on account of their superior skill, for three pieces of the finest fabrics, which it was possible to have manufactured, one of Mulboos [Malbus Khas] or as it is now generally called Mulmul Caus [Malaml Khas], another of Sircarally

APPENDIX 1

207

[Sarkar Ali]14 and the third of Jungle Cossaes [Jungle Khas or Khasa]. For the convenience of the Weavers, the improvement of the Cloths and to save time, as I was told, it would take twelve months to make a full piece of such cloth, the Weavers not being able to weave it during the middle of the Day, I directed, that the Cloths should be made of quarter Pieces; and in order that there might be no deficiency of encouragement to induce the Weavers to make every exertion in their power to meet my wishes, I settled the price of each piece to two hundred Arcot Rupees and paid the whole sum, six hundred Rupees, to the Weavers in advance. The Weavers, on their part, gave the strongest assurances, that the Cloths should be, at least, equal to the Muslins which used to be sent to Delhi. At the end of three or four months I received the Cloths which, though certainly extremely fine, appeared to the best Judges of Cloths at this Factory, to be, by no means equal to the Sum paid for them, and they proved inferior to some Mulmul Caus [Malmal Khas] which I afterwards had made, at Sonargong [Sonargaon], at the price of one hundred sixty Sicca Rupees per piece. The weight of the finest half piece of Mulmul Caus of the last mentioned price, that has been of late years provided, at this Factory, was twelve and an half Sicca Weight, or about five Ounces. If the whole of this Piece had been made of the finest Thread, the cost of Thread, at the rate of three Sicca Rupees per Sicca Weight, would have amounted to about thirty nine Rupees as half of a Sicca Weight of Thread is estimated to be lost by wastage in weaving the Cloth, which would have left the Weavers forty one Rupees profit.15 The profit considering the singular beauty of the Fabric, the extraordinary skill requisite in Manufacturing it, and the length of time/six months/which it took to make the Cloth, appears to be below, rather than above, the Weavers deserved, and it is less even than what the Weavers are understood to make, by several other high priced assortments of this Province. But it is well known that no Cloth is ever made of thread of one quality only; and of the Cloth in question it was supposed that three Sicca Weight only consisted of the first sort of Thread of three rupees, eight Sicca Weight of Thread of two Rupees and half and two Sicca Weight of Thread of two Rupees per Sicca Weight, which makes the profit of the weaver forty seven Rupees, for himself, and two assistants for six Months. Plain Muslins of more intrinsic value than one hundred and sixty rupees per Piece is, I conceive, at this time not procurable, although for the two following reasons it may be supposed that under the Mogul government Fabrics more valuable were manufactured. 1st The Company until 1792 never provided Cloths of higher price than fifty Arcot Rupees per piece whole. Since 179216 a small provision, not exceeding one hundred and fifty half pieces, has been annually made of Mulmul Caus [Malmal

208

APPENDICES

Khas], Sircarally [Sarkari Ali] and Jungle Cossaes [Jungle Khasa], assortments costing about one hundred Sicca Rupees per whole piece. This also is the highest priced Cloth usually made by individuals, whose demands for such Fabrics is, at all times, very small occasionally a few pieces of Cloths of higher value are manufactured for presents. The making of the finest thread such as is adapted for Cloths of one hundred and sixty Rupees per piece value, is confined, as has been already shewn [shown] to a very small number of Persons, whose whole estimated annually produce is only equal to the manufacture of three and an half whole, or seven half pieces of Cloth, reckoning each half piece to require thirteen Sicca Weight of Thread. Under the Mogul government from two to three hundred whole pieces of Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas], for which the Weavers received one hundred and fifty Arcot Rupees per piece were annually made for the Emperor. A considerable number of the most Skilful Spinners, to whom advances were made by the Weavers, were employed in spinning Thread requisite for those Fabrics. The habit of constantly spinning such fine Thread, the implied obligation of making it of the best kind, and the emulation which would naturally arise among such a number of persons, employed in preparing it, would severally operate in improving the quality of the Thread, as highly as it was capable of being improved. The Standard quality of the Mulboos Caus [Malbus khas] Thread was one hundred and fifty hauts [hat or cubit] per Rutty17 [rati], but Thread of form one hundred and forty to one hundred and forty to one hundred and sixty hauts per Rutty [rati] is supposed to have been received, the inferior Thread for the tanna or warp, the superior for the burna or woof.18 The finest that is now made, is one hundred and forty hauts [hats] per Rutty [rati]. The price paid for the Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas] Thread is said to have been, from Arcot Rupees four to Arcot Rupees five per Sicca Weight.19 The highest price that is now paid is Sicca Rupees three and half per Sicca Weight. 2nd. Cloths of every kind, the finest as well as the coarsest, are at present manufactured at the Weavers’ houses and the frauds which the Weavers all practice in weaving cloths of every description are of public notoriety. On the right side of the tanna, or warp, they lay the best thread belonging to the assortment, on the left side the next best, and in the middle a sort inferior to both. In what respects the burna, or woof, similar distinctions are observed, and according as the folds are more or less exposed to inspection. Thread of different degrees of fineness is applied to them. These practices, no discouragement, short of the mandate of despotic authority, can prevent; wherever power has not prevented them, they have always existed. Under the Mogul Government the Emperor had Mulboos Caus Coties [Malbus khas kuthies] at Dacca, Sonargong [Sonargaon], and

APPENDIX 1

209

Junglebarry [Junglebari]. The Coties [kuthies] were superintended by Darogas, and it was their immediate duty to inspect the manufacture of all the cloths made for the Emperor’s use. At Sonargong [Sonargaon] and Junglebarry [Junglebari], sheds were erected at the Coties [kuthies], for the Looms, and for the accommodation of the Workmen. The Weavers employed to make the Cloths were selected from amongst the best manufacturers and registered and were compelled20 regularly to attend at the appointed hours until the piece or portion of the piece allotted to each weaver was finished. Mokeems [Mukims] on the part of the Darogas Daily inspected the Thread which the Weavers brought for their Looms, and none was permitted to be used until it has been previously compared with the established musters, and approved of. The constant practise of weaving such Cloth must have highly advanced the skill of the Weavers, and the incessant inspection of the Darogas and their people, and the fear of incurring punishment for any deviation of the duty expected of them, must have effectually deterred the Weavers while manufacturing the Cloth from attempting any improper practices. Under these circumstances the Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas] manufactured for the Emperor was probably not only made of superior Thread, but consisted throughout the warp and woof as nearly as possible of Thread of one quality. The weight per piece of such Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas] I have not been able satisfactorily to ascertain. But from the information communicated to me.21 I conjecture that the weight of a half piece was from ten to eleven Sicca Weight, the tanna consisting of from five and an half half to six, the burna from four and an half to five Sicca Weight. The art of making Jamdannies, of embroidering Cloths in the Loom, is exclusively possessed by the Weavers of the Dacca Aurung (arang). The Jamdannies made for the Emperor were advanced for by the Darogas [Daroghas] of the Sudder Mulboos Caus Cootee [Sadar Malbus Khas Kuthi] at Dacca, but probably from some local considerations, part only of the Cloths was made under the immediate inspection of the Darogas [Darogha]. The rest was manufactured at the Weavers Houses. The Sum charged is stated to have been two hundred and fifty Arcot Rupees per piece, but I have been informed by a Weaver who used to make Jamdannies for the Mulboos Caus Cootee [Malbus Khas Kuthi] in the time of the Nabob Serajuddowla, [Nawab Sirajuddaullah], that the sum paid to the Weavers was only at the rate of three and an half Rupees per gudge [gaz] and each gudge [gaz] equal to one haut [hat] and three quarters)22 of thirty gudges [gazes] in length by one haut [hat] and three quarters in breadth, equal to one hundred and five Rupees per piece of fifty two hauts [hats] by one and three quarters. The price corresponds with what is now paid for the best

210

APPENDICES

Jamdannies, the Thread of which is said to be finer now than formerly, but the patterns lighter and less curious. According to the Weaver abovementioned, Jamdannies at a later period, have been made for the Nabob Mahomed Reza Cawn [Nawab Muhammad Reza Khan]23 while Naib Nazim of Dacca, which on account of their expensive patterns, not on account of any superior fineness of Thread, cost fifteen Rupees per gudge [gaz] or at the rate of four hundred and fifty Arcot Rupees per piece of fifty two haus [hats] by one and three quarters. Jamdannies of this expensive kind are not now in demand. The finest assortments made under the immediate inspection of the Darogas of the Malboos Caus Cooties [Malbus Khas kuthies], excepted all the other Fabrics of this Province, whether plain, striped, chequered, or flowered, in all above a hundred assortments, are, I am of opinion, upon the whole fully equal, and in many instances superior at this time to what they used to be in any period of the Mogul Government and if in some particular assortments, as I believe is the case, there is an inferiority of fineness in the tanna or warp, it is counterbalanced by the superior fineness, and greater evenness, of the burna or woof Thread. I have two reasons for this opinion [.] 1st, A certain demand for all these articles has been annually kept up which, whilst for many years past it has not been so great as to produce relaxation of care on the part of the Spinners or Weavers employed – has yet been sufficient to prevent any loss of skill either in the preparation of the Thread, or in the manufacture of the Cloth, and a constant attention to the improvement of the Fabrics has in the meantime been given by the Company’s Investment at this factory. 2nd, Under the Mogul Government the demand for Cloths appear to have been much greater than it has been since, at least for a great number of Years. The Delolls [dalals] thro’[through] whom all Cloths, excepting the finest, were provided, were probably, on account of the demand, much more attentive to encrease [sic] the quantity, than to improve the quality of the Fabrics. There were then no rival manufactures in Europe. Europeans had not learnt to imitate the art of weaving muslins. In the purchase of Indian Fabrics there was consequently much less necessity than there now is for strictness in examination of them. The Weavers were not wanting in taking advantage of every circumstance favourable to their interest. It was then a custom with them, in addition to their other practices, to make the body of the Mulmul [Malmal] assortments of one quality, and particular folds of a superior quality, the tanna thread of which last they very carefully united to that of the first. Of this kind there are several old musters of low priced cloths of the year 1758, now in the factory, and it was till Mr. Cartier’s time, (between 1760 and 1767) that

211

APPENDIX 1

this practice, as far as it respected the Company’s provision, was put a stop to. It was soon after discontinued generally. The prices now paid for the Fabrics in general, altho’ [although] in some few instances nominally lower, are, in every instance, the Jamdannies excepted, actually higher than what the Weavers are known to have received towards the close of the Mogul Government; and the rates of the low assortments have been raised considerably. The great reduction of prices in the Jamdannies is owing not to any disproportionate profit being now enjoyed by the Jamdanny Weavers in comparison with what is obtained by Weavers manufacturing plain Cloths, but to the inordinate profit, formely received by a very limited number of manufacturers of Jamdannies, having by a gradually great increase of Jamdanny Weavers, among whom a proportionably increasing competition for providing the Cloths has arisen, been [?] since reduced to a more reasonable standard. In illustration of the preceding observations, I subjoin the following comparative account of prices, as paid in Mr. Cartier’s Chiefship, during the four last years (from 1760 to 1767 [sic]) of the Mogul Government, and as paid now. The former period is assumed as being the earliest of which there are records extant at this factory and I have no reason to believe that at an earlier period the prices were higher. Comparative Statement of prices paid by the Company for Dacca Cloths, in Mr. Cartiers Chiefship, during the four last years of the Mogul Government, (from 1760 to 1764) and now. Assortments24 Assortments

No. of threads

Dimensions [cubits]

Price paid from 1760 to 1764 Letter A Arcot Rs.

Present price 1800 Letter A Sicca Rs.

Dooreas Ditto middling Ditto Ditto Broad Ditto fine Ditto Charconna Superfine Ditto Superfine broad Ditto Ditto Bogzie broa [kaghazi?]fine superfine

1,500 1,900 -Do­ 2,000

40 by 2 -Do­ 40 by 2¼ 40 by 2

12­ 18­ 20-4 25 ­

15­ 20-15 22-10 29­

2,100 2,100 Do

-Do­ 40&2¼ 40&2

30 33-12 50 ­

28 - ­ 37-11 44 -

212 Abroahs [Ab-i-rawan] Jamdannies Seerbetties Ordinary Seerbunds fine Mulmulls Ditto fine Ditto Ditto long Ditto Superfine long Ditto Superfine Ditto Superfine long Allabalies Ditto fine Ditto Superfine Tanjebs fine Ditto Superfine Ditto Broad Ditto Jungle fine/ Superfine Ditto Ditto fine Ditto Ditto Superfine Seerhaudconnas Jungle Ditto Ditto Fine Ditto Ditto Superfine Nyansooks Jungle fine Do Do Do Do Do Superfine Terindams Ordinary Do Fine Do Superfine Do Fine/Superfine Mamudhaitties Seerbunds [Sar-band] Nayansook Chaundpore fine [Nayansukh Chandpur] Nayansook Chaundpore super fine [Nayansukh Chandpur] Cossaes Chaundpore [Khasa Chandpur] fine Cossaes Chaundpore [Khasa Chandpur] super fine

APPENDICES

1400 Do Do Do 1,200 1,300 Do 1,400 1,600 1,800 1,500 1,700 1,800 Do Do 1,600 Do

Do 20&2 40&2 40 & ¼ 40 & 2 18 & 2 Do 40 & 2 45 & 2 40 & 2 Do Do Do Do 40 & 2¼ 40 & 2

36 ­ 50-` 5­ 4­ 7-8 9­ 11­ 30­ 20 - ­ 47- ­ 10 15 25 8-­ 14 - ­ 8-­ 36-1­

39-2 36-4 7-8 4-15 10-4 12-7 14-15 33-8­ 22-5­ 50 – 4 13-8­ 17-11­ 29-13­ 11-15­ 18 - ­ 12-15­ 36-5­

Do Do 2,100 Do Do 2,200 2,500 2,700 2,700 Do Do Do Do 600 Do

Do Do Do Do Do Do Do 40 & 2¼ 40 & 2¼ Do Do Do 40 & 2 40 & 1¼ 40 & 2¼

14 - ­ 19-8­ 32 - ­ 40 - ­ 50 - ­ 33-8­ 33 - ­ 50 - ­ 6-­ 10 - ­ 20 - ­ 35 - 3-9­ @ 3-4­ @ 10­

15-10­ 22-2­ 31 - ­ 40 - ­ 50 - 33 - ­ 33 - ­ 50 - 8-7­ 13-12­ 22 - ­ 33 - 5-4­ 3-12­ 12­

Do

Do

16­

18­

Do

Do

14­

15-8

Do

Do

20­

21­

213

APPENDIX 1

Hummuns Chaundpore [Humhums Chandpur] fine Do Do super fine Demmitties ordinary [Dimitty] Do fine

Do

24 & 3

16-

14­

Do Do

Do 24 & 2

21 6--

18-8 6-10­

Do

Do

11-8-

12-8­

From Mr. Cartiers prices the Delolls [dalals] to whom, as contractors for the investment, the advances were made, deducted on their account as follows, and paid the residue to the Weavers. Account Aurung [aurung] charges [Rs.] Account Batta [discount] Mokeems [Mokim] & Ruffagurs Hesaabana for Mohreers [clerks] Tewarry Parboony [Holy days] Birty Takore Gossein [Charity to Takore] Total

3.2 p.c. [per cent] 1.9 ” 1.9 ” .8 ” .5 ” .3 ” 7.4 per cent25

From the present prices, paid immediately, to the Weavers there is no deduction whatever made. Mr. Cartiers musters, on which the prices paid from 1760 to 1764 (and until the time of Mr. Barwell in 1774) [as chief of the Dacca Provincial Council] were allowed, having been nearly worn out, are, with two or three exceptions no longer in use. The musters which under different Chiefs and Residents have been since substituted for them, being for the greater part of a Fabric, less thin, and more evenly made, are understood to be, in general, rather better than Mr. Cartiers musters, though in some instances the tanna Thread of the last is superior. The necessaries of life, however, are stated to have been much cheaper formerly than now. Rice, which forty years ago, was two and a half maunds per Arcot Rupee, is now one and half maunds per Arcot Rupee. Salt, which at the same period was one Arcot Rupee per maund, is now four Sicca rupees per maund. Oil, which was two and a half Arcot Rupees per maund is now four Arcot Rupees per maund. Other articles are also enhanced in price. Coppas, which used to be at the rate of from four to five puns [pans =

214

APPENDICES

20 gandas of cowries] per seer was last year at six and is this year at nine puns. Thread of all kinds excepting the finest is much dearer now than formerly. In 1787 and 1788 a great number of Spinners died of famine. This and the encreased [sic] price of necessaries of life, are considered as the principal causes of the present dearness of Thread. Labour is likewise raised. The pay of a Weaver forty years ago was from one to one and an half Arcot Rupee, and of a journeyman from eight annas to twelve annas per month. The pay of the former is now from two and an half Arcot Rupees to three and an half Acrot Rupees, and of the latter from one Arcot Rupee to two Arcot Rupees. Rent also is said to be raised, and what formerly was eight annas per pauky (a little less than a bega) is now twelve annas.26 In other respects the conditions of the manufactures has been greatly ameliorated. The regulations which have been framed for the Government of this country have rendered the Weavers free agents – at this factory it is an annual instruction from the Resident to the Aurung Gomastas [arang gomashtas, i.e. agents appointed at the manufacturing centres], that the regulation, which respects the Weavers and the Commercial Resident, be read to the Weavers before any engagements for the new year are entered into. Every individual Weaver executes a separate written engagement for the provision of the Cloths which he voluntarily contracts to deliver, and these engagements are in no instance ever departed from except by a written request on the part of the Weavers, or of their representatives. The Weavers accounts are annually adjusted, and each Weaver has throughout the year a copy of his running account (called a haut chitty) [hat, meaning hand and chiti, meaning letter or note] regularly brought up, constantly in his possession. On the other hand, the very great diminution in the demand of the Fabrics of this Province, which has now prevailed since the commencement of the present war in Europe, by annually contracting the sources of the Weavers profits, has had the unavoidable effect of impoverishing the condition of a great part of the Weavers, and of reducing many to a state of insolvency. Ability of the Aurungs [aurungs] in regard to the amount of goods which can be annually provided at them.27 “ It has long been the practice to estimate the Cloth Trade of this Province at fifty or sixty lacs [of rupees] per annum, and the Dacca Custom House entries have been quoted, and I have reason to believe correctly, as authorities for this estimate. But this affords no proof that the Dacca Aurungs [aurungs] are capable of investing so large a sum. The entries alluded to include not

APPENDIX 1

215

only goods the produce of the Dacca Aurungs [aurungs] but of the neighboring factory of Luckipore [Lakshmipur, in modern Noakhali district in Bangladesh] which formerly was comprehended in the Dacca Province, and for whose exports Rowannahs [rawanah, i.e. pass or license issued by the Custom House to the merchants after receiving the duties] were invariably obtained from the Dacca Custom House. They likewise include importations from Hurriaul28 the greatest part of which Aurung [aurung] was also comprehended in, and still forms a part of this Province. And the whole exports were valued, not according to the actual cost of the Cloths, but agreeably to an authorized table of rates which, from what I can learn of the mode in which it was formed, included an advance of at least fifty per cent upon the price paid to the Weavers. “Separating from the Dacca Aurungs [aurungs] the goods of Luckipore [Lakshmipur], Chittagong and Hurriaul, the following may be stated as the extent of their present produce, supporting the prices which they now obtain to be the standard of the purchases. Dacca ……. ……. …… Sonargong [Sonargaon] Narrainpore [Narayanpur, Kumilla Dist., Bangladesh] Junglebarry Bazettpore [Junglebari, Bazetpur] Chaundpore [Chandpur, in Comilla district] Serampore [Srirampur, in Comilla district] Dumroy [Dhamrai] Teetbaddy

Exclusive of low assortments for the use of the natives …….. ……. And allowing for possible deficiencies in the estimate …. …… … The whole amount of to [sic]

4,50,000 - 3,50,000 - 2,00,000 - 4,50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 - 2,50,000 - 1,50,000 - ­ 18,50,000 - ­ [correctly 19,50,000 - - ] 4,50,000 - ­ 2,00,000 - ­ ARS 25,00,000 - ­ [correctly 26,00,000 - - ]

The opinion of the ability of the Aurungs , as contained in the preceding extract, was given shortly after the close of a period that for a number of years had been particularly favourable to the extension [sic] of the Cloth Trade. Since 1792 in consequence of the annually decreased demand for Dacca Goods, number of manufacturers for want of employment, have discontinued weaving Cloth. Some of them have engaged in other occupations and some are reduced to such a State of indigence as to render it unsafe to trust them with advances even were the demand for Cloths to be increased,

216

APPENDICES

under these circumstances I am of opinion that Cloths to an amount exceeding eighteen lacs of Sicca Rupees could not by any exertion, now be procured form the Dacca Aurungs in the course of one Year, and that it would require at least three Years of continued encouragement to restore to the Aurungs [arangs] the ability of providing Cloths which they possessed in 1792. Dacca Factory 30th November, 1800 (signed) J. Taylor Resident. N. 8 * Process of Weaving Plain & Flowered Muslins as practiced by the Weavers at Dacca: Sorting and Preparation of Thread [*Note by Taylor: This paper is a copy of No. 1. transmitted with my letter under date the 13th September, 1800 to the Board of Trade.] The Weavers having purchased their Thread sort it into the different Assortments for which they intend to use it. The Thread of the Assortment first wanted is then separated into two parts, the finest for the woof or burna, Coarsest for the tanna or warp. The warp Thread is then put into water, daily twice changed, where it remains three days. On the fourth it is taken out of the water, rinsed, put upon small reels, and then wound on larger, See AB figure 1.29 Skeins of sufficient size being wound off, they are removed from the reels, wetted in water, rinsed, well twisted, and put for a day or two in the sun to dry. The Weavers then untwist the skeins examine the Thread, separating such part as from being too fine or too coarse, is improper to be used for the tanna or warp. The tanna Thread is then put into powdered Charcoal or soot and water, where it remains one or two days. It is then taken out of the water, rinsed a little and put upon reels marked D in figure 2 whence it is reeled on reels marked B in figure 1. It is then taken off, and put into plain water, where it remains till the next morning. The Thread is then rinsed open, and smoothed, and rubbed over with a Paste made of khye (baked paddy from which the husk has been removed by heated Sand) a little chunam [lime] and water. The Skeins are then put on reels marked D in figure 2 and reeled off on reels marked B in figure 1 spreading the Thread from one end to the other of the reel that it may dry quickly. The reels are afterwards put in the Sun, and the Thread being thoroughly dried, it is again put on reels marked D, and reeled off on reels marked B as before. On being

APPENDIX 1

217

removed from these reels the Thread is sorted in three letters A, B, C. The A or first sort is used for the right side of the warp, the B or next finest, for the left side, and the C or coarsest for the centre part. The Thread is then ready for the warp of plain Muslin. If the warp to be prepared is intended for Dooreas [striped], a proportion of the Thread is twisted two Threads together, and if for Batta Cogzie Dooreas [Bafta Kaghazi Dooreas], or Batta Charconnas [Bafta Charconnas [bafta means woven and charkuna, literally meaning four cornered or square was applied to the chequered muslin], a proportion of the Thread is twisted four threads together, and both are sized and prepared as before. The Thread for the burna or woof is not prepared until two Days previous to the commencement of weaving, a quantity of Thread sufficient to be worked off in the course of one day is then put into water, the next Day it is taken out, rinsed, placed on small reels, and thence wound on larger. The Thread is next smoothed, and very lightly rubbed over with Paste of the same kind as is applied to the tanna Thread. The Thread is again put on small reels, and thence reeled off on larger and dried in the shade, the process of daily preparing the burna or woof Thread is continued until the Cloth for which it is used is finished, in order that the Thread may always remain in a soft state. Were it to be kept beyond a day, the paste rubbed up on it would dry and harden, and render the Thread unfit to be used for the woof. Laying of the Warp If the Cloth is to be forty Cubits long, the Weaver measures out 18 gudges [gauges] of 2¼ Cubits each or twenty two Yards and a half, and prepares the warp as represented by figure 2. AAAA represent four posts fixed in the Ground at distances to allow the length of the warp to be twenty two yards and a half. BBBB fifteen pairs of bamboo rods fixed in the Ground for the warp to be laid over, and crossed, that the Thread may be in proper order, and readily fall in its place, when the warp is spread out to be fixed, and rolled round the end roll of the loom. CCCC the warp as it appears when laid over the posts A and rods B. The number of Threads laid is more or less according to the number of Threads ordered. DD two reels, on which the Skeins of Thread are placed, to run off to from the warp C. EE the Skeins of the thread on the reels, FF round loops for the end of Threads to pass through from the reels to the warp. GG handle of the reels, and loop rods, held one in each hand by the Workman who, by traversing the Threads over the four posts and rods the number of times that there are to be Threads in

218

APPENDICES

the warp, taking fresh skeins of Thread as often as they are run off the reel, and crossing hands between the posts and bamboo rods A and B as represented at C forms the warp for a plain piece of Muslin and renders it ready to be fixed to the roll. If the warp be required for Dooreas, the Weaver uses two sets of reels, one for the plain, the other for the twisted Threads required for the stripes of the Dooreas which he employs alternately until the warp is completed, first in laying the number of Threads required for the plain part, next the number of twisted Threads required for the stripes of the Dooreas. If the warp be required for Batta Cogzie Dooreas [bafta kaghazi doorea], or Batta Charconnas [batta charkuna], the Weaver as above uses two sets of reels, the second set being served with Thread twisted four together, and in employing each set alternately, carefully preserves the distance at which the Batta [bafta] and Cogzie are to be respectively placed from each other. Applying the Warp to the End Roll of the Loom and Preparing it for the Reed The warp is taken from off the four posts AAAA figure 2, and two bamboo rods arc then run through the loops at the end. The warp is next rolled up in a hank on the bamboo rods, and prepared as represented at figure 3. AA two posts and roll posts to which the end roll of the loom B is fixed by two cords. CC a bamboo rod passed through the loop end of the warp DD and fastened to the roll B with small cords. The outermost Threads of the warp are then brought to the breadth of which the piece of Muslin is required to be when finished. One man holding the loose end that is rolled up in a hank on the bamboo rods, loosens as much of the warp as the dimensions of the Weavers workshop or place will admit of while two other men, one each side of the warp, lay the bamboo rods EE in order, and each with small piece of cane, beat and softened at one end into the form of a hair pencil, brushes out the Threads to the breadth required. The man who holds the loose end of the warp then draws it tight, when the others beat the surface of the Threads with a small elastick [sic] bamboo rod, which they hold in the form of a bow, to make the Threads separate, and be in proper order. The workmen next examine all the Threads to see if any mistake has been made in placing the warp. If any Threads are found to be misplaced, they are laid right, or if broken united again; after which, by the winch F, they roll up the part prepared, and go on in a similar manner until all the warp is prepared, and ready to receive the reed.

APPENDIX 1

219

Applying the Reed to the Warp The roll with the warp is taken from the posts at figure 3 and fixed as represented at figure 4 by two cords to posts AA, when part the warp is rolled off BB, as represented at CC. The workmen then take two slight cords DD, and fasten the ends of each to the bamboo rod EE, the other end, going over the roll at BB, is brought down and fastened by Threads to the reed FF, so that the reed may hang on the front of the warp a few inches above the end loops. Two workmen then place themselves, one in front, the other behind the warp, and having cut with a knife part of the loops, the workman in front passes an iron wire through the first division of the reed, the man on the opposite side then twists the two outer-most Threads of the warp round the point of the iron wire, which the man in the front draws through the iron wire is then passed through the second division of the reed, threads next in order are drawn through, and this process is repeated until all the Threads are in the same manner drawn through the reed. The workmen: then take a number of Threads together, and knot them as at G, and through the loops formed by the knots the workmen again pass the bamboo rod, which with small twine is fixed to the breast roll of the loom. G represents the Thread of the warp drawn through reeds and knotted. F Threads cut and ready to be introduced between the reeds, and K loops of the warp not yet cut. When all the Threads of the warp are cut drawn through the several divisions of the reed, and knotted, the warp is then ready to be fixed to the breast roll of the loom, to have the harness applied. Preparation of the Harness The warp is taken from figure 4, and fixed as represented at figure 5. AAAA four posts, the same as in the loom BBBB four shoulder posts, CCCC the rolls D the warp stretched out and brought to the breast roll, by the roll rod EE, and a number of cords, FFFF two bamboo rods, that keep the Threads of the warp crossed GGGG two flat rules passed through the warp, and brought upon their edge to keep each half of the warp sufficiently raised for the workmen to work the loops of the harness. HH two reels, with strong coloured Thread for the loops of the harness. The ends of the skeins of Thread fixed on each reel pass through to the workmen on the opposite side. The workmen then each take a thin round cane, somewhat longer than the breadth of the warp as at FF, under this they place a piece of wood about eight inches long, of a flat oval form as KK. The end of the coloured Thread

220

APPENDICES

are then brought to the outside of the outermost Thread of the warp and knotted to the round canes II. Each workman then puts his fingers between the outermost Thread of the warp and the one next in place to it, and brings up a loop of the harness Thread, which passing up the inside of the flat oval piece of wood KK, and crossed round the canes II, fall on the opposite side of the wood. A second loop is then up, crossed round the cane as before and let down on the opposite side, and in this way the remaining loops are successively taken up, until the harness of one side of the warp is finished, the canes II, and flat oval pieces of the wood KK passing on at the same time to receive the loops as they are formed. When the warp on one side is harnessed the warp is taken from the posts, reversed, and fixed as before. The coloured Thread for the harness is then passed through the warp as on the opposite side, and also through the loops. The workmen then take up the harness Thread, forming it into loops as before, by which the loops on the opposite sides of the warp are interloped, leaving the Thread of the warp within the loops so placed as to rise and fall according as force acts upon the upper or under loops of each part of the harness. The workmen then fasten the cane rods II with threads to small bamboo rods which form the harness rods, represented in figure 6, the two upper rods being for the slings of the balance or harness weight, represented in figure 6 at KK and LL. The warp is then ready for the loom. Description of the Loom and Process of Weaving Plain Cloths The warp, when the harness is fixed, is next brought to the loom as represented at figure 6. AAAA four bamboo posts fixed in the ground. BBBB four bamboo stakes fixed in the ground to serve as shoulders to the breast and end rolls. CCCC breast and end rolls. DD roll rods passed through the knotted loops at the end of the warp, and fastened to the breast and end rolls with cords. EE two bamboos to support the harness and FF reed supporters. GG harness balance, HH reeds and reed bands II reed slings KK harness LL harness weight to which are fixed the treadles, by which according as the Weaver presses on one or other of them the harness alternately rises or falls. MM bamboo rods, N the warp, O the winch, P counter fixture. Q joint rod, or bow, with two brass or iron pins at each end to keep the woof when weaving at the proper breadth. R part of the cloth, S the Shuttle. The loom and its apparatus being all adjusted, the Weaver commences weaving. He presses a treadle, the harness fastened to it sinks and with harness the warp threads to which they are attached. The opposite harness

APPENDIX 1

221

by means of the harness balance II rises, and the shuttle with the woof Thread, being applied to the opening between the upper and lower Threads of the warp S is passed by a jerk of one hand through the warp, and received with the other hand at opposite side, the woof Thread is then drawn home by a stroke of the frame wherein the reed is placed, which, when released from the weavers hand, swings; back; and leaves room for the shuttle to be returned. The Weaver then presses the other treadle, the harness falls and rises as before, and the shuttle, being introduced ;at the opening is passed through the opposite side, and closed by a stroke of the frame. This process is repeated till the Cloth is finished. The preparation of the tanna or warp Thread of a full piece of plain or striped Cloth of the Dacca Aurung employs two men according to the quality of the Thread, from ten to thirty days. The [weaving] of such cloth employs two persons, one to weave, the other to prepare Thread and attend the loom, if of the ordinary and middling plain assortments from ten to fifteen days, if of the fine twenty, the superfine thirty, and the fine superfine from forty to forty five days and if the Cloth be of the fine superfine Dooreas Charconnas [charkuna] or fine superfine Batta [bafta] Cogzie [kagazi] Doorea assortments, sixty days. At other Aurungs where Cloths of higher or of less value are made, the time requisite for manufacturing them is proportionably increased or diminished. A half piece of Mulmul Caus [Malmal Khas] or of Sircar Ally [sarkar ali] of the finest kind costing from 70 to 80 Rupees cannot be manufactured in less than five or six months. A whole piece of Narrainpore Jehauzy Mulmuls [Narayanpur Jahaji Malmat] costing two rupees can be made in the course of eight days. Process of Weaving Jamdannies or Flowered Cloths The Weavers place the warp in the loom, the same as for a piece of plain muslin, and weave a little of the end. Two weavers next range along the woof of the Cloth a number of Threads as there are flowers, or parts of the design to be formed, and with two small bamboo sticks draw each of these Threads between as many of threads of the wrap as may be equal to the breadth of the part of the flower, or design they have to form. When the Threads are all brought between the warp, they are drawn home by a stroke of the frame. The shuttle with the woof Thread is then passed by one of the Weavers through the warp, and the woof Thread being drawn home by the frame, the shuttle is retuned by the other Weaver to the opposite side, and the woof Thread as before is closed by a stroke of the frame. The Weavers with their

222

APPENDICES

bamboo sticks then again bring each of the Threads abovementioned between as many Threads of the warp, as the breadth of the part of the flower, or design to be formed, admits of and drawing these home by a stroke of the frame, passing the shuttle with the woof Thread through the warp, and drawing the woof Thread home, return the shuttle as before. In this way the Weavers repeat the process, each time observing to pass the flower Threads between a greater or less number of the Threads of the wrap in proportion to the size of the flower or design intended to be formed, as represented in figure 7. aa loose threads, cut to convenient lengths placed ready for the Weaver to work the flower, or design with. bb part of the Cloth. cc ends of the Threads drawn through the warp with the bamboo sticks. dd two bamboo sticks introduced between part of the warp, with the ends of the Threads ready to be drawn through. The preparation of the tanna, or warp Thread of half piece of Jamdannies employs two men, according to the quality of the Thread, from twenty to thirty days. The weaving of such a piece employs three men, two to weave and make the flowers, and one to prepare Thread and attend the loom, if of the middling or fine assortments from two to three months, if of the superfine from three to four, and if of fine superfine from four to five months. Dacca Factory 30th November, 1800 (Signed) J. Taylor Resident. N. 9 Memorandum In the month of March last the Police officers were ordered to ascertain the number of houses within the city of Dacca and the names of the proprietors, and from the report of the Police officers, it appeared there were 233 musjids or Musulman places of worship, 52 Hindu temples, and 43949 dwelling, houses, of which 2832 only were brick houses, the others all thatched houses, By their reports it also appeared that the number of Musulman proprietors were in the proportion of 14½ to 13 Hindu proprietors. An exact account of the number of inhabitants was not taken, but the reports afford grounds to estimate the number to be upwards of two hundred thousand within the limits of the city. But these limits comprehend the present city and its suburbs viz. the tract under the jurisdiction of the city magistrate; whereas the boundaries of the present city may be considered, the river Boorygonga

APPENDIX 1

223

[Buriganga] on the south,30 Dewan Bazar on the north, Enayet Gunge [Enayetganj] on the west, and Fereedabad [Faridabad] on the east, which is a tract of about seven miles long (east and west) and two miles and a half broad (north and south). From the report of the police officers it also appears that the number of Christian inhabitants may be estimated at about seven hundred and fifty, of whom about forty are Europeans, one hundred and two Armeninans, and fourteen Georgians, the rest native Christians. (Signed) J. Melvill Fouzadarry Adaulut [Faujdari Adalat] City of Dacca 3rd November, 1801.

Magistrate True copy (signed) J. Taylor Resident

NOTES 1. Munim Khan Khan-i-Khanan was a Mughal general under both emperors Humayun and Akbar. He was titled Khan-i-Khanan when Akbar appointed him as Vazir (Prime Minister). Then in 1564 he became the subadar of Jaunpur. He also served as the governor of Bengal and Bihar during 1574-5. Munim Khan was sent to suppress the Sultan of Bengal, Daud Khan Karrani under direct initiative of Emperor Akbar. He was then appointed as the governor of Bengal and Bihar. He later captured the Afghan capital of Bengal, Tandah, on 25 September 1574. In the battle of Tukaroi, held on 3 March 1575, he forced Daud Shah to sign a treaty which left only Orissa under Daud Shah’s control. Munim Khan transferred the capital of Bengal from Tandah to Gaur. 2. When the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb was in utter distress for want of resources to carry on his campaigns in the Deccan, his only hope was Bengal and in order to augment the revenue collections from the province he brought Muhammed Hadi, the efficient dewan of Hyderabad, to Bengal and appointed him the dewan of Bengal with the title of Kartalab Khan. The latter reorganized the Bengal revenue system and introduced a number of reforms and thus increased the revenue collection substantially. This enabled him to send a surplus revenue to the tune of Rs. 1.3 crore [Rs. 13 million] to the old and ailing emperor in the Deccan. Aurangzeb was so pleased with his dewan that he gave him the title of Murshid Quli Khan and permitted him to rename Maksudabad (where he transferred his dewani, in the face of the hostility of the subadar Prince Azim-us-Shan), to Murshidabad in 1704. Subsequently Murshid Quli became both subadar and dewan in 1716/17, something contrary to Mughal administrative practice. He ruled Bengal almost as an independent Nawab till his death in 1727.

224

APPENDICES

3. Mir Kasim became nawab of Bengal in 1760 after the British deposed Mir Jafar as the Bengal nawab. But soon after Mir Kasim ascended the throne, he came into conflict with the British on several counts, the most important of which was the question of British private trade. The remarkable thing about him was that he was the first Indian ruler who reorganized the army on European lines with the help of his Armenian general, Gurgin Khan. Unfortunately Mir Kasim, the last independent nawab of Bengal, so to speak, had to go in for war with the British and was defeated in the Battle of Buxar in 1763. After that the British became the supreme power in Bengal. 4. Sarfaraz Khan, born Mirza Asadullah (d. 29 April 1740), was a nawab of Bengal. His maternal grandfather, Nawab Murshid Quli Khan who was the diwan and subadar of Bengal, nominated him as the direct heir to him as there was no other successsor. After Murshid Quli’s death in 1727, Sarfaraz ascended to the masnad (throne) of the Nawab. Sarfaraz’s father, Shujauddin Muhammad Khan, then the subadar of Orissa, getting to know of it, arrived at Murshidabad, the capital of Bengal, with a huge army. To avoid a conflict in the family, the dowager Begum of Murshid Quli asked Shujauddin to ascend to the masnad after Sarfaraz abdicated in favour of his father. However, circumstances led Shujauddin to nominate Sarfaraz as his heir and after Shuja’s death in 1739, Sarfaraz Khan again ascended to the masnad as the nawab of Bengal. 5. Seir-ul-Mutaqherin is regarded as one of the most authentic sources for the history of eighteenth century, depicting the period of the last seven emperors of ‘Hindusthan’, and especially the story of the English in Bengal. Bur one has to be very careful while using Seir as source material because the author Gholam Hosain Khan himself stated in his Preface that he wrote the chronicle at the behest of his English ‘master’. As such it is often biased, pro-British and anti-nawab in its approach. 6. [The quotation is from 115th paragraph of the letter of the Court of Directors.] 7. Unfortunately these musters are not found in the mss. 8. This section is omitted since it has no bearing on the textile industries of Bengal/Dhaka. 9. It appears that James Taylor in his Descriptive and Historical Account of the Cotton Manufacture of Dacca, London, has reproduced this part from John Taylor’s report but put the date wrongly as 1753, though it should have been 1747. A later author J.C. Sinha, following James Taylor repeats the same mistake and puts the date as 1753, and not 1747. 10. [Almost all that respects this article is extracted from my letter dated 26 July 1792 to the Board of Trade. For further particulars on the subject of cotton, the mode of cultivating it &ca see the letter.] 11. Sicca or Sikka is the silver rupee coined in the royal mint. 12. Here John Taylor seems to have identified the aurungs of Junglebari and

APPENDIX 1

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

225

Bazitpur as one and the same. But James Taylor (Descriptive and Historical Account of the Cotton Manufacture of Dacca, London, 1851, p. 9) identities the places as follows: ‘Junglebaree lies on the eastern side of the Brahmaputra river, in a part of the country which was formerly included in the province of Dacca, but which now constitutes a portion of the neighbouring district of Mymensing. Bazetpore is about eighteen miles from Junglebary; and like it, now forms a part of the district. See also N.K. Sinha, J.C. Sinha, J.F. Watson, etc. The muslins were procured for the Emperor and the Nawab by an officer called Darogha-i-Malbus Khas. He was appointed by the Bengal Nawab and was assisted by a Deputy and a number of peons. He maintained karkhana or factories, known as malbus-khas-kuthi at different manufacturing centres. From the Company records, we get the names of two darogha-i­ malbus khas – Srinath, from c.1723 to c.1736 and Sirajuddin Khan, from 1736 to probably the end of the Mughal rule. The records give the impression that the officers appropriated to themselves the power of controlling the weavers, ruffugars and nureas, all those connected with the manufacturing of the muslins. By these means they also extorted money from the European Companies. James Taylor, on the basis of William Bolt’s Considerations on Indian Affairs, London, 1772-5, p. 194, states that during Sirajuddaullah’s tme (1756-7), 700 weavers left Junglebari because of the oppression of the nawab’s officers and settled in other parts of the country, (Descriptive and Historical Account of the Cotton Manufacture of Dacca, p. 9). It was a muslin made exclusively for the nawabs of Bengal and it was called so as the price of this fabric was paid from the revenue of the nawab’s jaigir at at Sarakar-i-Ala or Ali. [The profit is shared by three persons, the head weaver who buys the thread, the weaver who makes the cloth, and the journeyman who assists the weaver, one of them the weaver, receiving from Arcot rupees 3/- to 3/8/- per month, the other the journeyman from Arcot rupees 1/8/- to 1/12/- per month.] [See my letter dated 25th June 1792 to the Board of Trade.] [An instance is related of a Spinner at Sonargong [Sonargaon] having made a Rutty (rati) of Thread of such extraordinary fineness as to contain one hundred and seventy five hauts of Thread. ] [A distinction in the quality of the warp and woof Thread is necessary in making fine Cloth, were all Thread to be of equal fineness , the web would not appear to advantage. ] [Two causes are assigned for the high price of this thread. 1st. The competition of the purchase of the Thread was extremely great. The Weavers were under an obligation to provide [but] the Spinners were under none to sell the Thread, 2nd. The superior quality of the Thread justified a considerable value to be attached to it.]

226

APPENDICES

20. [Peons were set after them if they did not attend and they were punished if they attempted to abscond. None of the weavers worked willingly, on account of the inadequate profit which the cloths yielded them. [It will be of interest to note here that William Bolts states (Considerations on Indian Affairs, p. 194) that during the early years of the Company’s rule, and not in the Mughal period, 700 weavers left the place and took to other means of subsistence.] 21. [The tanna or warp is said to have consisted of 1800 threads the same in point of number though of much superior fineness as are now put into the finest Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas]. The burna or woof Thread, still finer, is said to have been much less closely woven than the burna of the finest Mulboos Caus [Malbus Khas] now made.] 22. [This is not the Standard measurement of the Gudge [gaz] for cloth. It varies from one and three quarters to two and a quarter. The last is in most general use.] 23. Saiyid Muhammad Reza Khan held the office of Naib Nazim and Naib Diwan of Bengal from 1765 to 1772. Instead of the British gradually taking over the local administration under the urge to eliminate corruption, there was an administration carried on competently in traditional style by Reza Khan under attack from the East India Company’s officers who were not so much concerned with rooting out this alleged corruption in the interest of justice and efficiency as increasing the revenues of the Company and adding the by-products to themselves. There was constant pressure on Reza Khan’s Collectors to produce more money and finally control was taken out of their hands. Reza Khan, with considerable skill, fought a rearguard action for the traditional administration against the plundering system of the early Company’s servants in Bengal; he was finally brought to trial on trumpedup charges but despite all the pressures open to Warren Hastings (who managed Reza Khan’s trial), it was not possible to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was finally reinstated at Murshidabad as Naib Nazim in 1775. The best reference for Reza Khan is Abdul Majed Khan, The Transition in Bengal, 1756-75: A Study of Saiyid Muhammad Reza Khan, CUP, Reprint, 2007. 24. {That list contains all the assortments, half prices of similar denomination with whole prices excepted, provided in Mr. Cartier’s time. About fifty additional assortments are now provided.] 25. [Exclusive of this deduction, the Delolls [Dalals] received from the Company over & above the prices above mentioned as follows: Account Delolly [dalali] Account Pycarry [paikari] Account Dustory [dasturi] Total

3.2 per cent 3.2 per cent 1.9 per cent 7.13 per cent

APPENDIX 1

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

227

These sums, according to agreement, were added at the Factory at the foot of each prizing to the cost of the Cloths, as an equivalent to the Delolls [dalals] for their risks of balances in providing the Cloths. The above remark applies to such of the above-mentioned Cloths as were called “Pattny” [cloths for which advances were made to the dalals and paikars, In Calcutta the word used for this system was investment] on which advances were made by the Delolls through pycars to the Weavers. On other Cloths called “koosh kareed” [khush kharid, i.e. goods purchased from the market and paid for in cash. The English equivalent use for this was ‘ready money goods’.] under which description are included a few of the low-priced assortments in the abovementioned list Delolly [dalali] and Dustory [dasturi] only were refused, the Cloths having been purchased for ready money at the Hauts [hats] and Bazars, without the immediate aid of pycars [paikars]. Editor’s Note: The method of investment in Dhaka was almost the same as in other factories in Bengal with slight local variations. Generally after the Europe-bound ships had left, mostly by November/December, rarely January, the Dhaka Council arranged for the next year’s investment on the basis of the last year’s list. Occasionally, however, the Calcutta Council sent a list of goods to be procured at Dhaka as per the instructions sent from London. On the basis of these lists, the Dhaka Council contracted for the goods with the merchant-middlemen/dalas/pikars, etc., and paid them advance money (dadan) which was generally around 75 to 80 per cent. After the merchantmiddlemen etc. delivered all the goods they contracted for, the account was finally adjusted and the balance paid. This system of procurement was called pattan and was generally applied to the high-priced goods. It seems that the low-priced goods were supplied by the dalals and paikars but they were paid only after the goods were delivered. They were called ready money goods or khush khareed. For a detailed account, see, the Chapter on Dhaka Muslin. [There is a detailed description of the system of measurement of land as prevailed in Dhaka in the eighteenth century in A.L. Clay’s report, dated 16 July 1867, in Principal Head of History and Statistics of the Dacca Division, Calcutta, 1868]. [The whole of this article, the concluding paragraph excepted, is extracted from my letter before mentioned dated 26th July, 1792 to the Board of Trade.] [In modern Pubna district.] Unfortunately though there are so many references to the figures in this section or in others, no such figures are found in Taylor’s manuscript. [Extending from the Boorygonga [Buriganga] south to Tungy [Tangi] bridge north, a distance of about fifteen miles and from Jafferabad [Jafarabad] west to Postgola east, a distance of about ten miles. These limits are understood to have been the extent of the ancient [sic] city, when Dacca was the seat of the Government of these provinces.]

APPENDIX 2

Letter of a Spinner (Woman) of Santipur, Bengal, published in the Samachar-Darpan of the 5th January 1828,* English Translation

To

The Editor,

Sir,

I am a woman and having suffered great distress, I am sending this letter

with a request that you will kindly publish it in several issues of your paper.

I have heard that if it is published, it will reach the ears of those who can

remove miseries, and if so, my desire will be fulfilled. So hopefully you will

not discard this letter just considering it to be written by a hapless woman.

I am really an ill-fated woman. . . .When I was twenty-two years old, my husband died, without having made any provision for his parents and our three daughters. I performed his Sradh ceremony by selling my ornaments. After that we were on the verge of starvation when God had shown me a way to save ourselves from death. That is to say I started spinning thread, both fine and coarse. In the morning after the daily chores, I sat with the spinning wheel and span till noon. After spinning about one tola of thread, I went to take a bath. Then I cooked and fed my parents-in-law and the three children. Thereafter eating something myself, I sat with the spindle to spin fine thread. I did not leave until I had spun about one tola of fine yarn. *Sambadpatre Shekaler Katha, collected and edited by Brajendranath Bandyopadhyay, Bangiya Sahitya Parishad, Calcutta, 1st edn. 1339 bs, 4th rpt. 1377.

APPENDIX 2

229

The weavers came to my house and took both the coarse and the fine thread, the former at three tolas a rupee and the latter at one and a half tola. Whatever amount I demanded as advance from the weavers was promptly given to me by them. As such we had no anxiety about food and clothing. Gradually I became proficient in the art of spinning and in the course of a few years saved twenty-eight rupees. By saving in this way I succeeded in marrying my three daughters one after another. No pains were spared to act up to the customary rites and ceremonies in these weddings. . . . Then my father-in­ law died, and I spent forty four rupees in his sradh ceremony, this sum being advanced to me by the weavers. In the course of a year and a half I paid up the money. It was all due to the spinning wheel. Now for the last three years my mother-in-law and myself have been on the verge of starvation. Far from coming to my house for buying thread, the weavers do not accept the thread at one-fourth of the former price, even when sent to the market. I do not understand at all the reason for this. I have enquired about the matter from many, who say that foreign thread is being imported, and that the weavers have been purchasing it. I had a pride that it would not equal mine in quality. But I saw afterwards it was better than mine, and I heard that it sold at three or four rupees a seer. I beat my head, uttering ‘Oh, God, there are more unfortunate women than me in the world. Earlier I knew that in England everyone is rich, and the Bengalis are all poor!’ Now I could realise that even there are more unfortunate women than me as I know how very laborious it was to make thread which, like me, they too had to pass through. As the foreign thread which was not sold at a good price in England, it was sent here. If it was sold at a good price here, it would do no harm. But instead, it has ruined us. The cloth made of that thread cannot properly be worn for even two months. So I beseech the spinners of the country sending this thread to consider my application, and see for themselves whether it is proper to send yarn to this country. A suffering woman spinner, Santipur

APPENDIX 3

Names/Terms used in

Persian Chronicles in Respect

of Textile Production

[Prepared by Irfan Habib for

Sushil Chaudhury in his Own Handwriting]

APPENDIX 3

231

232

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 3

233

234

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 3

adhotar, dhotar adras, adhras āghā-bānī Akbarī alacha, īlcha, ilācha, ilā’icha alwān ‘a=mbarī a_tān a¡tlas bādāma bādla bāfta bahrāman, bahrāma, bahrāhān bāndhnūn bard bel bhairon, bhairam būta chandkāla, chandkorā, chandrakāna chārkhāna chautdār chaklā chhapka chhin_t, chit chikan, chikān chīra chundrī dārāī dībā dadāmī dolāī ]dūriya dotahī, dotāhī fo¡ta fuwwah

235

light calico dyed calico inferior flowered muslin thin coarse muslin closely woven striped silk or silk-&-cotton interwoven woollen cloth for turban, belt, shawl superior grade of white cloth muslin satin, cotton-silk interwoven cloth of coarse silk silver or gold wire for embroidery, or weave calico fine silk cloth Bandana; cloth tied-dyed silken fabric floral border fine cotton cloth flower, embroidered or woven coarse calico striped muslin white cotton fabric (4-threaded) silk and cotton mixed coarse, printed cloth chintz, printed or painted embroidered white cloth turban cloth, with interwoven gold thread cloth tied, dyed striped silk cloth; also called daryāī. silk fabric flowered white muslin double-layered blanket or coverlet filled with cotton or wool striped & checkered muslin double-layered cotton fabric fabric with silk and wool inter-woven; fabric with gold-thread wooden instrument used in dyeing cloth

236 gangājal garbasūtī, garm-sūt, karb-sūt gazī, gazīna ghārwa, khārwa gulbadan gulband, gullandī hammāmī hauzdār hīsh hominī, mominī īlcha jāmawār jhūla, jhūlī jhūna juz, khaz kalābatūn kamkhāb karbalāī kārchob kashīda khairābādī khārā kharsak, khirsak khā_sa khīsh khwāb, khāb kirpās, karpās kor, qor kusk lahriya landara ma]hmūdī makhmal malmal Ma‘murkhānī mandīl, mindīl mashrū‘ momini

APPENDICES

muslin fabric with silk and cotton interwoven coarse cotton cloth coarse calico double-coloured silk fabric bāndhnūn thick peace of cloth used as towel. brocaded embroidered cloth khīsh muslin See alacha brocaded woollen fabric cotton fabric superior cotton cloth silk cloth gold wire used in brocade gold-brocade, silver brocade striped cloth, silk-cotton or silk-wool interwoven wooden frame used for gold and silver embroidery embroidered cloth; embroidery calico, between medium & low quality silk fabric wollen carpet muslin linen fine wool white cloth gold wire stitched in silk fine wool, woven with shawl and velvet fabric with wavy patterns broadcloth muslin velvet muslin calico turban-cloth woven with silk and gold-wire silk fabric See komini

APPENDIX 3

mihskul momjāma muqaiyash mushajjar namad palangposh panchtūliya parī paskāla pat patola phūt, phot, phok pota purazadār qumāsh qutanī roz-o-shab rūmāl sahan, _sahan salāhatī, _salā]hatī saila, sālū, sālo sarband shah-andar-roz shāl shālū shānabāf

sha’r sha¡tranjī shela, sela, sīla shīrīnbāft sirī_sāf, sīrī_sāf sūsī sozanī suqarlāt, suqlāt

237

muslin waxed cloth bādlā flowered silk fabric felt bed-cover, ‘palampore’ cotton fabric carpet of thick, coarse cotton superior calico inferior cotton fabric; also soft-wod fabric silk fabric with warp and weft pre-dyed. wollen fabric bādāma inferior thick cotton fabric used as carpet usually, silk fabric, but also used for superior cotton cloth silk cloth; also mixed silk and cotton cloth see shābrandas-roz silk or cotton turban-cloth, handkerchief muslin muslin (fourteenth century); inferior cotton cloth (sixteenth century) thick cotton cloth women’s head-cover, usually of thin cotton silk cloth with black and white stripes shawl saree with gold-brocaded border fine cotton cloth (fourteenth century, and in Bengal), coarse cloth (Delhi, eighteenth century) silk fabric multi-coloured cotton carpet muslin muslin muslin striped silk and cotton cloth (often of cotton only with some silk thread) thin blanket of silk or cotton, stuffed with cotton broadcloth

238 sundas taf_sīla, tafsīla tāfta, taftā takiya-i namad tansukh, tansuk, tansukh, nainsukh tanzeb ¡tara]hdār ¡tās tasar _ta_t-band tūra tūs zanjīra zarbaft zardozī zarkash zartārī zafarkhani

APPENDICES

thin silk cloth

silk fabric, worn in winter

silk fabric

felt carpet

muslin

muslin white alacka silk with gold brocade wild silk, tasar Eri silk gold lace worn on turbans; fine unsewn cloth (shawl woven out of ) wool of wild goat silk and gold thread seen on garment margin gold brocade gold (and silver) wire embroidery fabric in which silver corse is interwoven fabric woven out of fine cotton or silk or with gold brocade amberly calico

Original Sources

A. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

1. India Office Records, British Library, London Bengal Federal Ledgers and Journals Bengal Public Consultations Bengal Letters Received Board of Revenue, Misc. Proceedings, Range 9 8 British Museum Addl. Mss. Coast & Bay Abstracts Despatch Books European Manuscripts Factory Records: Kasimbazar, Dacca, Calcultta, Misc. Home Misc. Services Original Correspondence Orme Mss. Proceedings of the Board of Trade

2. Algemeen Ruksarchief (Now National Archief ), Den Haag. Netherlands Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC, earlier Kolkoniaal Archief [K.A.] Hoge Regering van Batavia 2 4 6

3. Stadsarchief Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium General Indische Compagnie (The Ostered Company) 5 6 7 8.

240

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

4. Bodleian Library, Oxford Rawlinson Mss. A 2 5 7, B 3 0 2, C 3 9 5, D 7 4 7.

5. West Bengal State Archives, Calcutta Proceedings of the Bengal Board of Trace (Commercial)

B. PRINTED SOURCES 1. Persian Sources Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, ed. Blochmann (Calcutta, 1866-7), vol. 1, tr. Blochman (rpt., Delhi, 1965) Gholam Hossain Khan, Seir Mutakherin, vol. II, tr. Haji Mustafa, 2nd rpt., Lahore, 1975. Gulam Husain Salim, Riyaz-us-Salatin, tr. Maulavi Abdus Salam, Calcutta, 1904. Jahangir, Tuzuk-i-Janhagir, ed. Syed Ahmad, Gazipur and Aligarh, 1863-4. Mirza Nathan, Baharistan-i-Ghaibi, tr. M.L. Borah, 2 vols, Gauhati, 1936.

2. Works in European Languages (a) Public Records, Selections Coolhaas, W.Ph. (ed.), Generale Missiven van Governeurs General enRadenaan Heren XVII der Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, 7 vols., 1610-1725, The Hague, 1960-79. Datta, K.K. (ed.), Fort William: India House Correspondence, vol. 1: 1748-56, Delhi, 1958. Fawcett, C. (ed.), The English Factories in India (New Series), 1670-1684, 4 vols., Oxford, 1936-53. Firminger, W.K. (ed.), The Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India Company, 1812, 3 vols., Calcutta, 1917-18. Heeres, J.E. and F.W. Stapel (eds.), Corpus-Diplomaticum Neerlands-Indicum, vols. 1-2, The Hague, 1907-53. Long, J., Selections from Unpublished Records of Government for the Years 1748­ 1767 and 1784-1805, rpt., Calcutta, 1973. Sinha, H.N. (ed.), Fort William: India House Correspondence, vol. II: 1764-68, Calcutta, 1962. Sinha, N. K., Fort William: India House Correspondence, vol. V: 1767-69, Calcutta, 1952.

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

241

Wilson, C.R. (ed.), The Early Annals of the English in Bengal, 3 vols, London, 1895-1913.

3. Travellers’ Accounts, Memoirs, etc. Barbosa, D., The Book of Duarte Barbosa, 2 vols., tr. M.L. Dames, London, 1921. Battuta, Ibn, The Rehala of Ibn Batuta, tr. Mahdi Hussain, 1953. Berner, F., Travels in the Mughal Empire, 1656-1668, ed. A. Constable, Oxford, 1934. Bolts, William, Considerations on Indian Affairs, London, 1772. Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of the Countries Round the Bay of Bengal, 1669-1679, ed. R.C. Temple, Cambridge, 1905. Carre, Abbe, The Travels of Abbe Carre in India and the Near East, 1672-74, Hakluyt Society, 2nd Series, London, 1947. Conti, Nicholo, ‘Narrative of my Voyage into Hindostan’, in R.H. Major (ed.), ‘Travels of Nicholo Conti’, India in the Fifteenth Century, London, 1857. Downton, Nicholas, The Account of …, Purchas and his Pilgrimes, 3, Glasgow, 1905. Dow, Alexander, History of Hindustan, vol. III, London, 1770. Federici, Caesar de, Extract of … his Eighteen Years Indian Observations, 1563-81, Purchas his Pilgrimes, 10, Glasgow, 1905. Fitch, Ralph, Purchas His Pilgrimes, X. Forbes, James, Oriental Memoirs, London, 1934. Fryer, John, A New Account of East India and Persia, 1672-81, ed. W. Crooke, 3 vols., London, 1909-1915. Hamilton, Alexander, A New Account of East India and Persia, 1672-81, ed. W. Foster, London, 1930. Hawkins, William, The Embassy of Sir William Hawkins. Linschoten, J.H. van, The Voyage of John Huijghen van Linschoten to the East Indies, London, 1885. Mahuan, The Account of Mahuan, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1885, ‘Kingdom of Bengali’, Eng. tr. P.C. Bagchi, Visvabharati Annual, 1945. Manrique, Sebastian, Travels of F. Sebastian Manrique, 1629-1643, ed. C.E. Luard, 2 vols., Oxford, 1927. Methwold, William, Relations of Golconda in the Early Seventeenth Century, ed. W.H. Moreland, London, 1931. Pires, Tome, The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires: An Account of the East, from the Red Sea to Japan, Written in Malacca and India in 1512-15, ed. Armando Coresao, 2 vols., London, 1944. Polo, Marco, The Book of Ser Marco Polo, 2 vols., tr. and ed. Henry Yule, New York, 1903.

242

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

Pyrard de Laval, The Voyages of Pyrard de Laval, tr. and ed. Gray, 2 vols., London, 1887-9. Razzak, Abdur, ‘Travels’, in R.H. Major (ed.), India in the Fifteenth Century, London, 1859. Roe, Thomas, The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to India, 1615-19, ed. W. Foster, London, 1926. Scrafton, Luke, Reflections on the Government of Indostan, London, 1763. Stavorinus, J.S., Voyage in the East Indies, tr. S.H. Wilcoke, 3 vols., London, 1778. Tavernier, Jean-Baptiste, Travels in India 1640-1667, tr. V. Ball, London, 1889. Vansitart, H., A Narrative of the Transactions in Bengal from 1760-1764, London, 1766. Varthema, Ludovico di, The Itinerary of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna from 1502 to 1508, ed. R.C. Temple, London, 1928. Verelst, H., A View of the Rise, Progress and Present State of the English Government in Bengal, London, 1772. Watts, William, Memoirs of the Revolution in Bengal, London, 1760.

4. European Sources Ahmad, A., Indo-Portuguese Trade in the Seventeenth Century, New Delhi, 1991. Arasaratnam, S., Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel Coast, 1650-1740, Delhi, 1987. ———, ‘India and the Indian Ocean in the Seventeenth Century’, in A. Dasgupta and M. Pearson (eds.), India and the Indian Ocean, 1500-1800, Delhi, 1987. ———, ‘Handloom Industry in South-Eastern India, 1750-1790’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 17(1980), pp. 257-81. ———, ‘The Coromandel South-East Asia Trade, 1650-1740: Challenges and Adaptation of a Commercial System’, Journal of Asian History, 18 (1984), pp. 113-35. Aslanian, Sebouh David, From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 2011. Basham, A.L., ‘Notes on Seafaring in Ancient India’, Studies in Indian History and Culture, Calcutta, 1964. Basset, D.K., The British in South-East Asia during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, London, 1990. Bastin, J., The Changing Pattern of the Early South-East Asian Spice Trade, Kuala Lumpur, 1956. Bayly, C.A., Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Cambridge, 1987. Bhattacharya, S., The East India Company and the Economy of Bengal from 1704­ 1740, London, 1954.

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

243

Biddulph, J., The Pirates of Malabar, London, 1907. Blussé, L and F.S. Gaastra (eds.), Companies and Trade: Essays on Overseas Trading Companies during the Ancient Regime, London, 1981. Bouchon, Geneviéve, ‘Trade in the Indian Ocean’, in S. Chaudhury and M. Morineau (eds.), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, Cambridge, 1999. ———, ‘A Microcosm: Calicut in the Sixteenth Century’, in Denys Lombard and J. Aubin (eds.), Asian Merchants and Businessmen in the Indian Ocean and the China Sea, New Delhi, 2000. Bouchon, Geneviéve and Denys Lombard, ‘Indian Ocean in the Fifteenth Century’, in A. Dasgupta and M. Pearson (eds.), India and the Indian Ocean, 1500-1800, Delhi, 1987. Boxer, C.R., The Portuguese Seaborne Empire, 1425-1825, New York, 1969/1987. ———, The Dutch Seaborne Empire, New York, 1965. ———, ‘A Note on Portuguese Reactions to the Revival of Red Sea Trade and the Rise of Ache, 1540-1600’, in Journal of the Southeast Asian Studies, December 1969, pp. 95-103, 157-9. Bowen, R. Le B., ‘Maritime Superstitions of the Arabs’, American Neptune, 15 (1955). Braudel, F., The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 2 vols., New York, 1972. Brenning, Joseph J., ‘The Textile Trade of Seventeenth Century Northern Coromandel: A Study of Pre-Modern Asian Export Industry’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1975. Chablani, H.L., The Economic Condition of India during the Sixteenth Century, Delhi, 1929. Chandra, Moti, Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India, Delhi, 1977. Chandra, Satish, ‘Commercial Activities of the Mughal Emperors during the Seventeenth Century’, Bengal Past and Present, 78 (146), 1959, pp. 92-7. ———, ed., The Indian Ocean Exploration in History, Commerce and Politics, Delhi, 1985. Chatterjee, Kumkum, Merchants, Politics and Society in Early Modern India: Bihar, 1733-1820, Leiden, 1996. Chardin, John, Sir John Chardin’s Travels in Persia, London, 1927. Chaudhuri, K.N., The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, Cambridge, 1978. ———, Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge, 1978. ———, Asia before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge, 1990. Chaudhury, Sushil, Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, 1650-1720, Calcutta, 1975.

244

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

———, Companies, Commerce and Merchants, Bengal in the pre-Colonial Era, Delhi, 2015. ———, Trade, Politics and Society: The Indian Mileu in the Early Modern Era, Delhi, 2015. ———, ‘Trading Networks of a Traditional Diaspora: Armenians in Indian Trade’, in Ina Bagdiantz McCabe et al. (eds.), Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks, Berg, Oxford, 2005. ———, ‘The Asian Merchants and Companies in Bengal’s Export Trade, circa mid-Eighteenth Century’, in S. Chaudhury and M. Morineau (eds.), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, Cambridge, 1999. ———, ‘The Armenians in Dhaka’, in M. Islam et al. (eds.), 400 Years of Capital Dhaka and Beyond, vol. II: Economy and Culture, Dhaka, 2011, pp. 85-94. ———, ‘Maritime Trade in the Indian Ocean, c. 1600-1800’, in The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Humanities), no. 1, June 2010, pp. 1-24. ———, ‘The Inflow of Silver in Bengal in the Global Perspective, c. 1650-1757’, in Denis Flynn et al. (eds.), Global Connections and Monitary History, Ashgate, 2003. ———, The Prelude to Empire: Plassey Revolution of 1757, Delhi, 2000. ———, From Prosperity to Decline: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century, Delhi, 1995. ———, ‘International Trade in Bengal Silk and the Comparative Role of the Asians and Europeans, circa 1700-1757’, Modern Asian Studies, 29, 2 (1995), pp. 373-86. ———, ‘European Companies and Bengal Textile Industry in the Eighteenth Century: The Pitfalls of Applying Quantitative Techniques’, Modern Asian Studies, 27, 2 (May 1993), pp. 321-40. ———, ‘Trade, Conquest and Bullion: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century’, Itinerario (Leiden), vol. 15, no 2 (1991), pp. 21-32. ———, ‘The Imperatives of Empire: Private Trade, Sub-Imperialism and the British Attack on Chandernagore’, Studies in History, vol. VIII, no. 1 (January-June 1992), pp. 1-12. ———, ‘Merchants, Companies and Rulers: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. XXXI (February 1988), pp. 74-109. ———, ‘The Rise and Decline of Hughli: A Port in Medieval Bengal’, Bengal Past and Present (January-June 1967), pp. 33-67. ———, ‘European Trading Companies and Bengal’s Export Trade, 1690-1757’, History of Bangladesh, vol. 2, Dhaka, 1992, pp. 183-224. Chaudhury, Sushil and Keram Kevonian (eds.), The Armenians in Asian Trade in the Early Modern Era, ‘Introduction’, pp. 3-18 and ‘Armenians in Bengal Trade and Politics’, pp. 149-70 by Sushil Chaudhury.

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

245

Chaudhury, Sushil and Michel Morineau (eds.), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Modern Era, Cambridge, 1999. Colebrooke, H. T., Remarks on the Husbandry and Commerce of Bengal, Calcutta, 1804. Curtain, P.D., Cross Cultural Trade in World History, Cambridge, 1984. Curly, David L., Poetry and History: Bengal Mngal Kavya and Social Changes in pre-Colonial Bengal, Calcutta, 2008. Dale, Stephen, Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600-1750, Cambridge, 1994. ———, ‘Indo-Russian Trade in the Eighteenth Century’, in Sugate Bose (ed.), South Asia and World Capitalism, 1990. Dasgupta, Ashin, Malabar in Asian Trade, 1740-1800, Cambridge, 1967. ———, ‘Indian Merchants and the Trade in the Indian Ocean, c. 1500-1750’, in Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1: c. 1200-1750, Cambridge, 1982. Dasgupta, Ashin and M. Pearson (eds.), India and the Indian Ocean, 1500-1800, Delhi, 1987. Davis, Ralph, The Rise of English Shipping Industry, London, 1962. De Souza, T.R. (ed.), Indo-Portuguese History: Old Issues, New Questions, Delhi, 1985. Digby, Simon, ‘The Maritime Trade of India’, in T. Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, pp. 125-59. Dmitriyev, G.L., ‘From the History of Indian Colony in Central Asia’, in S. Gopal (ed.), India and Central Asia, pp. 76-8. Eaton, Richard M., The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760, Delhi, 1994. Ferrier, J.P., Caravan Journeys and Wanderings in Persia, Afghanistan, Turkistan and Baloochistan, ed. H.D. Seymour and tr. Capt. William Jessy, 1857, rpt., Karachi, 1976. Furber, Holden, Rival Empires of Trade in the Indian Ocean, 1600-1800, Minneapolis and Oxford, 1976. ———, ‘Glimpses of Life and Trade on the Hooghly, 1720-1770’, in Bengal Past and Present, 1967. ———, John Company at Work, Cambridge (Mass.), 1951. ———, ‘Asia and West as Partners before “Empire” and After’, in Journal of Asian Studies, 28 (1969). Glamann, K., Dutch-Asiatic Trade, 1620-1740, The Hague, 1958. ———, ‘Bengal and the World Trade about 1700’, Bengal Past and Present, vol. LXXVI, s. no. 142, 1957, pp. 30-9. Gopal, Surendra (ed.), India and Central Asia: Cultural, Social and Economic Links, Delhi, 2001. ———, ‘Indians in Central Aisa: 16th and 17th Centuries’, in S. Gopal (ed.),

246

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

India and Central Asia: Cultural, Social and Economic Links, 2001, pp. 10­ 11. Habib, Irfan, ‘Merchant Communities in Pre-Colonial India’, in J.D. Tracy (ed.), The Rise of Merchant Empires, 1350-1750, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 371-99. ———, ‘Studying a Colonial Economy, Without Perceiving Colonialism’, Modern Asian Studies, 19.3 (1985), pp. 351-81. ———, ‘The Technology and Economy of Mughal India’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. XXVII, no. 1 (1980), pp. 1-34. Hariharan, K.V., ‘Sea-Dangers in Early Indian Seafaring’, Journal of Indian History, 34 (1956), pp. 314-20. Hill, S.C., ‘Notes on Privacy in Eastern Waters’, The Indian Antiquary, 55 (1926), pp. 1-65. Hourani, G.F., Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times, Princeton, 1951. Kling, B.B. and M.N. Pearson (eds.), The Age of Partnership in Asia before Dominion, Honolulu, 1979. McCabe, Ina Baghdiantz, The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: the Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (153-1750), Atlanta, 1999. Levi, Scott C., The Indian Diaspora in Central Asia and its Trade 1500-1900, Brill, 2002, pp. 30-1. Lewis, Archibald, ‘Maritime Skills in the Indian Ocean, 1368-1500’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 16, pts. 2-3. Lombard, Denys and Jean Aubin (eds.), Asian Merchants and Businessmen in the Indian Ocean and the China Sea, Delhi, 2000. Majid, Ibn, Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean, tr. G.R. Tibbets, London, 1971. Major, R.H. (ed.), India in the Fifteenth Century, no. 22, London, 1857. MacPherson, K., The Indian Ocean: A History of the People and the Sea, Delhi, 1994. Markovits, Claude, The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750-1947, Cambridge, 2000. Marshall, P.J., East India Fortune, Oxford, 1976. ———, Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Cambridge, 1987. ———, ‘Private British Investment in Eighteenth Century Bengal’, Bengal Past and Present, 86 (1967), pp. 54-67. ———, ‘Western Arms in Maritime Asia in the Early Phase of European Expansion’, in Modern Asian Studies, 14 (1), 1980, pp. 13-28. Matthew, K.S., Portuguese Trade with India in the Sixteenth Century, Delhi, 1975. ———, ‘Trade in the Indian Ocean and the Portuguese System of Cartazes’, in M.D.D. Newitt (eds.), The First Portuguese, Empire, Exeter, 1985, pp. 63-84.

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

247

Meilink-Roelofz, M.A.P., Asian Trade and European Influence in the Indonesian Archipelago between 1500 to about 1630, The Hague, 1962. Mookerjee, R.K., Indian Shipping: A History of the Seaborne Trade and Maritime Activity of the Indians from the Earliest Times, Bombay, 1912. Moreland, W.H., India at the Death of Akbar, London, 1923. ———, ‘The Ships of the Arabian Sea about a.d. 1500’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, January 1939. Morris, Rossabi, ‘The “Decline” of Central Asian Caravan Trade’, in J.D. Tracy, (ed.), The Rise of Merchant Empires, Cambridge, 1990, p. 368. Naqvi, H.K. Urban Centres and Industries in Upper India, Bombay, 1968. Newitt, M.D.D., ‘The East India Company in the Western Indian Ocean in the Early Seventeenth Century’, Journal of the Imperial and Commonwealth History, 14 (1988), pp. 5-33. Panikkar, K.M., Asia and Western Dominance, New York, 1960. Pearson, M.N., Merchants and Rulers in Gujarat: The Response to the Portuguese in the Sixteenth Century, Berkeley, 1976. ———, The Portuguese in India, Cambridge, 1987. Perlin, Frank, ‘South Asia and Western Dominance from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century: A Problem in Epistemological Status’, Review 6 (2), 1980, pp. 267-306. ———, ‘Proto-Industrialization and Pre-Colonial South Asia’, Past and Present, 98 (1983), pp. 30-95. Prakash, Om, The European Commercial Enterprises in Pre-Colonial India, Cambridge, 1998. ———, The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal, Princeton, 1985. ———, ‘On Estimating the Employment Indication of European Trade for Eighteenth Century Bengal Textile Industry – A Reply’, Modern Asian Studies, 27, 2 (1993), pp. 341-56. ———, ‘Bullion for Goods: International Trade in the Economy of Early Eighteenth Century Bengal’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, XII (1976), pp. 159-87. Qaisar, A.J., ‘Merchant Shipping in India during Seventeenth Century’, in Medieval India Miscellany, II, (1972), pp. 195-220. ———, The Indian Response to European Technology and Culture, Delhi, 1982. ———, ‘From Port to Port: Life on Indian Ships in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in A. Dasgupta and M.N. Pearson (eds.), India and the Indian Ocean, Delhi, 1987. Ravenstein, E.C., A Journal of the First Voyage of Vasco-da-Gama, 1497-99, London, 1898. Rawlinson, C.H., English Beginnings in Western India, 1600-1650, London, 1926.

248

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

Ray, Aniruddha, ‘Middle Bengal Literature: A Source for the Study of Bengal in the Age of Akbar’, in Irfan Habib (ed.), Akbar and His Age, Delhi, 1994. Ray, Indrani, ‘The French Company and the Merchants of Bengal, 1680-1730’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 7(1970). ———, ‘Of Trade and Traders in Seventeenth Century India. An Unpublished Memorandum by G. Rogue’, Indian Historical Review, 9 (1982), pp. 125­ 57. Raychaudhuri, T. and Irfan Habib (eds.), Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1982. Reid, Anthony, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, vol. 2, Expansion and Crisis, New York, 1993. Richards, D.S. (ed.), Islam and the Trade of Asia, Oxford, 1970. Riello, Giorgio, ‘The Indian Apprenticeship: The Trade of Indian Textile and the Making of European Cotton’, in Girogrio Riello and Tirthankar Roy (eds.), How India Clothed the World, p. 326. Rossabi, M., ‘The “Decline” of the Central Asian Caravan Trade’, in J.D. Tracy (ed.), The Rise of Merchant Empires, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 351-70. Saxe, Elizabeth Lee, ‘Fortune’s Tangled Web: Trading Network of English Enterprises in Eastern India, 1657-1717’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1979. Sinha, N.K., The Economic History of Bengal, 3 vols., 1958-65. Steensgaard, Niels, The Asian Trade Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, Chicago, 1974. ———, ‘Asian Trade and World Economy from the 15th to the 18th Century’, in T.R. de Souza (ed.), Indo-Portuguese History, Delhi, 1984. ———, ‘The Indian Ocean Network and the Emerging World Economy c.1500-1700’, in Satish Chandra (ed.), The Indian Ocean, Delhi, 1985, pp. 223-35. ———, ‘The Routes through Quandahar’, in S. Chaudhury and M. Morineau (eds.), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 55-73. Subramanyam, Sanjay, The Portuguese Empire in Asia, London, 1992. ———, Improvising Empire: Portuguese Trade Settlements on the Bay of Bengal, 1500-1700, Delhi, 1990. Subramanyam, Sanjay and Luis Felipe Thomaz, ‘Evolution of Empires: The Portuguese in the Indian Ocean during the Sixteenth Century’, in J.D. Tracy (ed.), Political Economy of Merchant Empires, Cambridge, 1991. Tracy, J.D. (ed.), The Rise of Merchant Empires, Cambridge, 1990.

——— (ed.), The Political Economy of Merchant Empires, Cambridge, 1991.

Tarafdar, M.R., Husain Shahi Bengal, Dacca, 1965.

Thrower, W.R., Life at sea in the Age of Sail, London, 1972.

van Leur, J.C., Indonesian Trade and Society, 1955.

O R I G I N A L S O U RC E S

249

van Santen, De Vereinigde Oost-Indische Compagnie in Gujarat en Hindusthan, 1620-1660’, Leiden, 1982. Veinstein, Gille, ‘Commercial Relation between India and the Ottoman Empire’, in S. Chaudhury and M. Morineau (eds.), Merchants, Companies and Trade: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, Cambridge, 1999. Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System, II, Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the World Economy, 1600-1750, New York, London, 1980. Winius, G.D. and M.P.M. Vink, The Merchant Warrior Pacified: The VOC and its Changing Political Economy in India, Delhi, 1991.

Index

Ab-i-rawan 66 Abul Fazl 48, 52, 53, 66, 67 Advance system. See Dadni system Ain-i-Akbari 66, 67 Arasaratnam, S. 13-14, 113 Arthashastra 52 Asian merchants 112-21; competition from 116; Danish account of 117-18; export of silk piece-goods from Bengal 118-19; quinquennial total and average of silk textiles exports 119; traditional export of textiles from Bengal 115-16 Aurungs 15, 18, 26, 28-33, 38, 43, 54, 56, 76, 77, 82, 116, 151, 177-9; Sonargaon 53 Baftas 32; manufacturing costs of 133-5 Baines, Edward 41 Bairam 20 Bairati cotton 42 Banerjee, N.N. 13 Barbosa, Duarte 20 Basak family 17 Basset, John 142 Bayrati cotton 54 Beatilha 20 Bebb, John 130, 133

Beg, Muhammed Ali 53 Bengal: The British Bridgehead 13 Bengal’s export trade, role of European companies in 89-109; bilateral trade 91; demand for Bengal textiles in Europe 94-5; Dutch Company’s intra-Asiatic trade in textiles 104-9; Dutch East India Company 89, 91; English East India Company 89, 91; features of textile trade 95-7; orders for textiles from Europe and England 96; Ostend Company 90; quadrennial total & average of textile exports 93; quinquennial total and average of annual textile export 99; share of different categories of textiles exported 102; share of textile value in total export value 94; volume and value of Dutch and English textile exports 103; volume and value of English textile exports 101 Bengal textile industry: advantages of 24-5; boom in 21-2; Danish Report (1789) of 125, 159; diffused character of 27; historical perspective of 19-22; literature on 12-13; localization of 27-9; reputation of 19; as rural domestic

252

INDEX

handicraft industry 26-7; salient or

distinct features of 26-30;

specialization 29-31, 178

Bengal textiles: estravantes 20; finer

varieties 20; foreign travellers view

on 19-21; malmals 20

Bernel, A.C. 52

Bernier, Francois 142

Bethilas 20

Bolts, William 51, 58-9, 170-1, 174

Bowrey, Thomas 52

Buddun Khas 67

Bustabunds 49

Calcutta Council 73, 80-1, 84

Cansius, Henry 115

Carry, J. 92

Charkanu (Charkona) 67-8

Charkha 180

Chaudhuri, K.N. 13, 142

Chaudhury, Indra Narayan 83-4

Child, Sir John 144, 145

Chowtars 20

Colebrooke, H.T. 41, 125

Cotton: bairati 42; crops of 55-6;

making thread from 44-5; phooti

41-2; plants 42; varieties of 41-2

‘Dacca Muslin Industry’ 174

Dadni merchants 16-17, 27, 59-60,

79, 81-2, 83, 86-7, 95, 126, 128,

129

Dadni system 15, 38-40, 129, 147,

179-80; and gomasta system 82;

production done through 40; raison

d’être of 38-9; transactions under

40; vs. verlagg system 39

Dalals 16, 17, 27, 38, 59-62, 127,

148, 149. See also dadni merchants

Daroga 64, 65, 181

Defoe, Daniel 142

Dhaka Cloth Production (1800) 144

Dhaka Factory Records 60-1

Dhakai Muslin 12

Dhaka muslin industry 51-68; centres

of muslin manufactures 53;

travellers records 52

Diwan 171

Donzar 20

Doorea 67

Dosooties 29

Du-gazi cloth 20

Duguazas 20

Dutch Company: cost of textiles

procured by 33; expensive textiles

exported by 34; intra-Asiatic trade,

in textiles 104-9

Dutch East India Company 89, 181

East India Company 162

Edwards, Richard 114, 115

English Company: classification

records 32-3; contracted with dadni

merchants 30; expensive textiles

exported by 34; and transactions

under dadni system 40

English East India Company 51, 53,

55, 70, 89, 176, 181

Estravantes 20

Fatehchand, Jagat Seth 85-6

Fenwick, Captain 86

Fitch, Ralph 52, 53, 176

Fort William Consultations 84

Fort William Council 95, 127, 129

Frankland, Henry 95

Fryer, John 79

da Gama, Vasco 76, 90, 181

‘Gangitiki’ 19

Garra 26, 28, 29, 32, 41, 97-8, 100,

135

Geoghegan J., 71

Ghosal, H.R. 13, 139

Gomastas (agents) 16, 27, 38, 77, 78,

82, 150, 163, 169-74, 185

INDEX

253

Guineas 32

Gunnies 107, 109

Kundegurs 49

Kuthis 64

Hath (cubit) 57

Hossain, Hameeda 13

Hume, Alexander 83

Hyndman, Thomas 127, 130

Lizati ciantar 20

Localization, of Bengal textile industry

27-9

Lungee romals 129

Ibn Battuta 52, 176

Istriwallahs 49, 181

Ma Huan 176

Malbus khas 62-3

Malmal khas 66

Jahanara, Begum 176

Mamonas / Mamone 20

Jamawars 31, 33

Mandal, Bancharam 172

Jamdani 31, 33, 41, 65, 68

Manrique, Sebastian 52

Jamdani weavers 31

Marshall, P.J. 13

Jhuna 66

Master, Streynsham 59, 70

Jung, Nawab Nasrat 55

Mitra, D. 13

Jungle khas 63, 66

Mokeems (mukims) 64, 65, 181

‘Mughal peace’ 157

Mukherjee, Bhawani Shankar 172

Kalsis 71

Mulboos khas (royal clothing) 31, 63-6,

Kapas 43. See also Cotton

131; cooties 64, 144, 181

Karim, Abdul 12

Karkhanas 16, 39, 59, 63, 64, 65, 68, Mulmul 20, 29-31; prices of 30;

weaving of 41

149, 180, 181

Musbool-khas-kothi 16

Kashida workers 140

Kasimbazar 17; English Council at 26; Musbool khas 59

Muslin: aurungs. See Aurungs; cost of production cost of taffetas in 74;

58-9; industry 16; khasa 29-31; silk fabrics in 28; silk piece-goods

making of good quality 57-8; of 25

mulboos khas (royal clothing) 31; Kasimbazar Council 28, 36, 73, 83

musbool khas 59; origin of word 52; ‘Kasimbazar Raj’ 83

phooti cotton for manufacturing Katmas 17, 83, 85

54-5; prices of two types of 30; Kelsal, Thomas 171

procurement system of 59-60; Khan, Ibrahim 64

spinning of 56; standard quality of Khan, Muhammed Reza 33, 58, 68

yarn for manufacturing 57; types of Khan, Murshid Quli 62

31 Khasa 29-31, 66, 127, 178; Burron 30;

Cogmaria 30-1; demand for 100;

Muslin industry. See Dhaka muslin Malda 30; manufacturing costs of

industry 133-5; most exported cloth 52;

Orua 30; prices of 30; share in total Nainsooks 33, 67

textiles ordered 97

Nandi, Krishnakanta 83

Khush kharid 38

Nardeahs / nurdeahs 48, 49

254

INDEX

Seth, Janardan 80

Seth family 17

Sett, Baranasi 80

Shabnam 66-7

Silk textiles 70-5; exports to Asian and

‘Oriental despotism’ 137

European companies 74;

Orme, Robert 20, 25, 26, 27, 40, 85,

production cost of taffetas 74;

125, 143, 149, 176, 183

taffetas 73

Ovington, J. 79

Silsilat-ut-Tawarikh 19

Sinabaf / Sinabafa 20

Paikars 16, 17, 38, 59-62, 127

Parthasarathi, Prasannan 14, 128, 137, Sinaband 20

Sinha, J.C. 13, 48, 174

140, 142, 146

Sinha, N.K. 13

Patan 38

Sirajuddaullah, Nawab 33, 163

Patni 38

Sirband 20

Pelsaert, Francisco 142

Soot romals 133

Phooti cotton 41-2, 180; for

Spinners of Dhaka 56-7

manufacturing muslin 54-5

Spinning 42-5

Prakash, Om 13

Procurement of textiles: overview 76-7; Stavorinus, J.S. 159

Sulaiman 52

problems faced by companies in

Surbatee 67

84-7; procurement system of

Surbund 67

companies 78-84; system adopted

by Asian or Indian merchants 77-8

Procurement system 16, 38-40

Taffetas: production cost of 136

Production organization 39-49;

Taffetas 32

overview 36-7; process of weaving

Tanti sardars 179

(post-spinning) 45-9; process of

Tanzeb 67

weaving (pre-spinning) 40-2;

Tarikh-i Nasratjungi 55

procurement system 38-40;

Tavernier, Jean-Baptiste 52

spinning 42-5

Taylor, James 13, 19, 43, 47, 48, 53,

Production system 15-16

56, 57, 58

‘Putney’ 72

Taylor, John 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37,

55, 60, 62, 63, 64, 116, 131-3, 144

Rafugars / refukars 48-9, 140, 181

Technology in Bengal textile industry

Ramaswamy, Vijaya 14, 146

156-9

Ratti 57

Terendam 67

Rijksarchief, Algemeen 14, 22

Textile trade and industry, decline of 161-74; competition from cheap English cloth 168; elimination of Sadar mulboos khas cootie 65

merchant-princes 164-5; English Salampuries 32

conquest of Bengal and 161-4; Sarkar-i-Ali (Ala) 63, 64, 66

export of textiles from Dhaka by Scrafton, Luke 183

Asian/Indian merchants 165; Seth, Jagat 78

Nayansook 67

Nazrana 64

Nurdeahs 181

INDEX

gomastas 163; India Office Records

162-3; position of weavers 162-3;

post-Plassey period 170-1; reasons

behind 166-9; reduction in wages

170

Titabadi village 53

Varthema, Ludovico 20

Verelst, Harry 171, 183

Verlagg system 39, 147

255

power of 128-30; jamdani 31;

mobility of 126-8;

peasant-cultivator as 25-7;

position in society 124-6;

post-Plassey era 150-1; poverty

of 141-50; wages or earnings

of 130-41

Weaving, process of: applying reed to

warp 47; fixing warp to loom 47;

post-spinning 45-9; pre-spinning

40-2; three main stages of 41;

warping 46-7; winding and

preparing thread 45-6

Weber, Max 39, 147

Wise, J.S. 171

‘Wage earner’ 40, 147

Ward, W. 139

Warping 46-7

Watts, William 86

Wazid, Khoja 163-4

Weavers 17-18, 21, 124-52; bargaining Yule, Henry 52