why did some forms of a Handlooms during survive even in 19 century
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:dont know mark brainliest and search on google or text book
In the above section we have discussed the different reasons for decline in Indian handloom
industry but despite this distress it survived during 19th and early 20th century. Handloom
industry is unparalleled in its flexibility and versatility, permitting experimentation and
encouraging innovation. The strength of handloom lies in the introducing innovative designs,
which can not be replicated by the power loom sector. There are certain fabrics which probably
always are best and most cheaply manufactured by hand. Therefore, richness and diversity of our
country and the creativity of the weavers is exemplified by the handloom industry and this is one
of the reasons for its survival. It is the specificity in the product of handloom industry that made it
competitive against machine made products. Indian clothes were considered to be superior not
because of its quality but because of this specificity. Persistence of demand for traditional
garments helped in its survival. Also handloom industry is very flexible and easily adapt to
changing conditions, design of the product can be easily changed in this industry but it is difficult
in mill industries. As we can see that fashion changes among the better off class due to flood of
imported British products in Indian market after introduction of railways. People from higher
social classes started copying following western culture. But changes in fashion affected men
more rather than women and, therefore, production on handlooms of garments worn by men,
such as turbans and silk bordered dhotis, declined with the competition of English goods.
Whereas women continued to wear the multi-coloured and exquisite fabrics that required
intensive labour to produce those garments and could not be manufactured in mills. At the same
time purchasing power of labourers on the public works continued to rise, especially with the
construction of railways and, therefore, lower classes were able to afford better clothing and they
also began to want saris for their women similar to those worn by the women of higher class. So
coarsest cloth was continued to be produced by village weavers whereas bulk of Indian demand,
which was for plain cloth of medium texture and brilliant colours was met by the mills of
England and India. Therefore, it was seen that the decline was specific to regions and products. In
some parts of India, like in Central Provinces, weavers lowered their prices in an effort to stay
competitive and accepted a lower standard of subsistence rather than abandon their traditional
craft. Weavers also started using mill-spun yarn, which reduced their costs considerably. While
British cloth was competitive with Indian handloom production, machine made yarn seems to
have strengthened the competitive position of the indigenous handloom sector despite the fall in
cloth prices. However, because of machine-spun yarn the handloom weavers became more
dependent on middlemen for financing the purchase of their raw material and for marketing of
their finished clothes. So, we can say that handloom weavers survived through the second half of
the 19th century. Where 19th century ended on a sober note for the Indian handloom industry as a
whole, downward trend of 20th century was checked by government’s serious efforts to retrieve
the situation. Famines of 1897 and 1899 forced the government to abandon its rigid adherence to
laissez-faire doctrines of non-intervention in the economy.