why british ruled india was uneconomic... explain in details
Answers
Answered by
0
Historians have questioned why India did not undergo industrialisation in the nineteenth century in the way that Britain did. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. India was the world's main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. Yet as British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution in the late eighteenth century, the Indian industry stagnated, and industrialisation in India was delayed until the twentieth century.
Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology.[2] British control of trade and exports of cheap Manchester cotton are cited as other significant factors.
Even as late as 1772, Henry Patullo, in the course of his comments on the economic resources of Bengal, could claim confidently that the demand for Indian textiles could never reduce, since no other nation could equal or rival it in quality.[3] However, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, a beginning of a long history of decline of textile exports is observed.[4]
A commonly cited legend is that in the early 19th century, the East India Company (EIC), had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favour of British textile imports (some anecdotal accounts say the thumbs of the weavers of Dacca were removed). However this is generally considered to be a myth, originating from William Bolts' 1772 account where he alleges that several weavers had cut off their own thumbs in protest at poor working conditions.[5][6]
Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology.[2] British control of trade and exports of cheap Manchester cotton are cited as other significant factors.
Even as late as 1772, Henry Patullo, in the course of his comments on the economic resources of Bengal, could claim confidently that the demand for Indian textiles could never reduce, since no other nation could equal or rival it in quality.[3] However, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, a beginning of a long history of decline of textile exports is observed.[4]
A commonly cited legend is that in the early 19th century, the East India Company (EIC), had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favour of British textile imports (some anecdotal accounts say the thumbs of the weavers of Dacca were removed). However this is generally considered to be a myth, originating from William Bolts' 1772 account where he alleges that several weavers had cut off their own thumbs in protest at poor working conditions.[5][6]
Anonymous:
I think you've used copy paste technique?
Answered by
2
British rule in India was uneconomic because they ruined small industries.
By the way they gave us valuable things also that's how we've come to forth with atleast train and steel bridges.. Don't Forget about it.. :)
Similar questions