Hand Labour, Workers' Lives & the Colonial Textile Trade

NCERT India and the Contemporary World-II | Chapter 4: The Age of Industrialisation

Hand Labour and Steam Power — Why Did Victorian England Prefer Workers Over Machines?

In Victorian Britain, there was no shortage of human labour. Poor peasants and vagrants poured into the cities in large numbers seeking employment, creating a constant surplus of workers waiting for jobs. When labour is abundant, wages remain low — so industrialists had little incentive to invest in expensive machines that would replace human hands.

Why Industrialists Preferred Hand Labour

Several factors kept hand labour dominant even as steam-powered technology became available:

Life of the Workers — What Were Conditions Like During the Industrial Revolution?

The abundance of labour did not translate into secure lives for workers. As word of possible employment spread, hundreds streamed into the cities. However, getting a job depended heavily on existing networks of friendship and kinship — those with a relative or acquaintance in a factory stood a far better chance of finding work quickly. Those without social connections often waited weeks, sleeping under bridges, in night shelters, or in Night Refuges^? and Casual Wards^? maintained by the Poor Law authorities.

Seasonality of employment meant prolonged periods without work. After the busy season ended, the poor returned to the streets. Some went back to the countryside during summer when rural labour demand increased, but most struggled to find odd jobs, which were scarce until the mid-nineteenth century.

While wages did rise somewhat in the early nineteenth century, these averages concealed wide variations. During the prolonged Napoleonic Wars^?, rising prices sharply reduced the real value of wages. At best, about 10% of the urban population lived in extreme poverty even in good times. During economic downturns like the 1830s, unemployment soared to between 35% and 75% in different regions.

Worker Resistance to New Technology

Fear of losing their livelihoods made workers deeply hostile to new machinery. When the Spinning Jenny^? was introduced in the woollen industry, women who depended on hand spinning attacked the new machines. This conflict continued for a long time.

After the 1840s, building activity intensified in cities. Roads were widened, new railway stations constructed, railway lines extended, tunnels dug, and drainage systems laid. The number of transport industry workers doubled in the 1840s and doubled again over the next thirty years, opening up greater opportunities for employment.

Industrialisation in the Colonies — How Did British Rule Transform Indian Manufacturing?

3.1 The Age of Indian Textiles

Before the era of machine industries, Indian silk and cotton goods dominated the international textile market. While coarser varieties of cotton were produced in many countries, the finest quality fabrics often came from India. Pre-colonial Indian ports^? formed the nodes of a vibrant trade network:

A network of Indian merchants and bankers financed production, transported goods, and supplied exporters. Supply merchants linked inland weaving villages to port towns. However, by the 1750s, this merchant-controlled network was breaking down as European trading companies gained power, securing concessions and then monopoly trading rights from local courts.

3.2 What Happened to Weavers?

After the East India Company consolidated political power in Bengal and Carnatic during the 1760s-1770s, it moved to control the textile supply chain through a systematic series of steps:

Step 1 — Eliminating middlemen: The Company appointed paid agents called gomasthas^? to supervise weavers directly, collect supplies, and inspect cloth quality, bypassing existing traders and brokers.

Step 2 — Binding weavers through advances: Weavers who accepted Company loans for purchasing raw materials were obligated to hand over their finished cloth only to the gomastha. They could not sell to any other buyer. Many weavers eagerly took these advances, hoping to earn more, and even leased out their agricultural plots to devote all their time to weaving.

However, the gomasthas were outsiders with no social ties to weaving villages. Unlike the old supply merchants who had lived among weavers and supported them during crises, these new agents acted arrogantly, entering villages with sepoys^? and peons, and punishing weavers for delays through beatings and flogging. Weavers lost all bargaining power — Company prices were miserably low, and the loans trapped them in dependency.

In response, weavers in Carnatic and Bengal deserted their villages, migrating to areas where they had family connections. Others revolted against the Company. Over time, many abandoned weaving altogether and turned to agricultural labour.

3.3 Manchester Comes to India

By the early nineteenth century, Indian textile exports entered a steep decline. In 1811-12, piece-goods made up 33% of India's exports; by 1850-51, this share had crashed to just 3%.

The Collapse of Indian Textile Exports

British industrial groups pressurised their government to impose import duties on cotton textiles, protecting Manchester goods from foreign competition. Simultaneously, they persuaded the East India Company to push British manufactures into Indian markets. By 1850, cotton piece-goods formed over 31% of Indian imports; by the 1870s, this figure exceeded 50%.

Indian cotton weavers faced a devastating double blow: their export markets collapsed while their domestic market was flooded with cheap Manchester imports. By the 1860s, a further crisis emerged when the American Civil War cut off cotton supplies to Britain, which then turned to Indian raw cotton. This drove up raw cotton prices in India, starving local weavers of affordable supplies. By the end of the century, the rise of Indian factory production added yet another layer of competition for traditional weavers.