¹Kerr, C., Harbison, F. H., Dunlop, J. T. and Myers, C. A., Industrialism and Industrial Man: The Problems of Labour and Management in Economic Growth (London, 1962), p. 33Google Scholar; Kerr, C. and Seigel, A., ‘The Structuring of the Labour Force in Industrial Society’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, VIII, 2 (1955), 151–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoselitz, B. E. and Moore, W. E. (eds), Industrialization and Society (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; Moore, W. E. and Feldman, A. S. (eds), Labour Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Smelser, N. J., Social Change and the Industrial Revolution (London, 1959)Google Scholar; idem, Theory of Collective Behaviour (New York, 1963).Google Scholar

²Kerr, et al. , Industrialism and Industrial Man, p. 47.Google Scholar

³Kerr, C., Harbison, F. H., Dunlop, J. T. and Myers, C. A., ‘Industrialism and Industrial Man’, International Labour Review, LXXXII, 3 (1960), 238.Google Scholar

⁴Ibid., 241; Kerr, et al. , Industrialism and Industrial Man, p. 47.Google Scholar

⁵Kerr, et al. , ‘Industrialism and Industrial Man’, 246.Google Scholar

⁶Ibid., 245–6.

⁷Beneath this desire lurked a different rationale. Development in this sense possessed other advantages, apart from higher per capita incomes. It might help to thwart the communist menace. It would prevent potential markets, raw materials and investment opportunities from being dragged behind the iron curtain. It would more positively open up these resources to the West, particularly if per capita incomes rose. For a brief but perceptive discussion, see Seers, D., ‘The Birth, Life and Death of Development Economies’, Development and Change, X, 4 (1979), 707–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸Habakkuk, H. J., ‘The Historical Experience of Economic Development’, in Robinson, E. A. G. (ed.), Problems in Economic Development (London, 1965), pp. 112–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a recent historiographical survey of the industrial revolution in Britain which shows how this approach came into vogue among economic historians in the 1950s, see Cannadine, D., ‘The Present and the Past in the English Industrial Revolution, 1880–1980’, Past and Present, CIII (05 1984), 131–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹Jones, E. L. (ed.), Agricultural and Economic Growth in England 1650–1815 (London, 1967), p. 2.Google Scholar See especially, Rostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge, 1960), p. 139 and passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰Lewis, W. A., ‘Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour’, The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, XXII, 2 (1954), 155.Google Scholar

¹¹Crouzet, F., ‘An Essay in Historiography’,Google Scholar in idem, Capital Formation in the Industrial Revolution (London, 1972), p. 11.Google Scholar

¹²Bagchi, A. K., Private Investment in India, 1900–1939 (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ray, R. K., Industrialization in India: Growth and Conflict in the Private Corporate Sector, 1914–1947 (Delhi, 1979)Google Scholar; Morris, M. D., ‘The Growth of Large-Scale Industry’, in Kumar, D. (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India [henceforth CEHI], vol. II, 1750–c. 1970 (Cambridge, 1983), 553–676.Google Scholar

¹³Of course, the industrialization of the ‘latecomers’ has sometimes acquired the status of a model in its own right. However, in terms of the social process of industrialization, it has usually borne a strong resemblance to the original British model. For a useful summary, see Trebilcock, R. C., The Industrialization of the Continental Powers, 1750–1914 (New York, 1981), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

¹⁴Landes, D. S., The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵For a recent exposition of different sociological traditions, stemming originally from the work of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, see Abrams, P., Historical Sociology (London, 1983), pp. 19–146.Google Scholar

¹⁶Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 553.Google Scholar

¹⁷Tomlinson, B. R., The Political Economy of the Raj: The Economics of Decolonization in India (London, 1979), p. 31Google Scholar; see also Ray, , Industrialization in India, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar

¹⁸Kerr, et al. , Industrialism and Industrial Man, pp. 193–223Google Scholar; Kerr, C., ‘Changing Social Structures’ in Moore, and Feldman, (eds), Labour Commitment and Social Change, pp. 348–59.Google Scholar

¹⁹For a recent restatement of the classical Marxist case, see Warren, Bill, Imperialism—the Pioneer of Capitalism (London, 1980).Google Scholar See also, Brewer, A., Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (London, 1980), especially, pp. 27–127, 286–94.Google Scholar

²⁰However, Marx himself did not rule out the possibility that under certain circumstances, capitalism might not effectively breach pre-capitalist modes of production. ‘The obstacles presented by the internal solidity and organization of pre-capitalist national modes of production to the corrosive influences of commerce’, he observed, ‘are strikingly illustrated in the intercourse of the English with India and China’. Marx, Karl, Capital (New York, 1967), III, 333–4Google Scholar, cited by Brenner, R. ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism’, New Left Review, CIV (07–08 1977), 26, fn. 2.Google Scholar

²¹Baran, P., The Political Economy of Growth (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Frank, A., Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (New York, 1967).Google Scholar For a sympathetic critique which developed these arguments in fresh directions, see Sutcliffe, Bob, ‘Imperialism and Industrialisation in the Third World’ in Owen, Roger and Sutcliffe, Bob (eds), Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London, 1972), pp. 171–92Google Scholar; see also Brewer, , Marxist Theories of Imperialism, pp. 158–81, 286–94.Google Scholar For a more searching critique, see Brenner, , ‘Origins of Capitalist Development’, 25–94.Google Scholar

²²Brenner, , ‘Origins of Capitalist Development’, 27.Google Scholar

²³Marx, K. and Engels, F., The German Ideology (London, 1965), p. 54Google Scholar, cited by Abrams, , Historical Sociology, p. 38.Google Scholar Of course, this notion of the autonomy of the relations of production was least evident, if not at times contradicted, in their historical writings.

²⁴Balibar, Etienne, ‘Basic Concepts of Historical Materialism’, in Althusser, L. and Balibar, E., Reading Capital (London, 1970).Google Scholar For an attempt to develop these concepts in historical analysis, see Jones, G. Stedman, ‘Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution’, New Left Review, XC (1975), 35–69.Google Scholar See also, Jones, G. Stedman, The Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1932–1982 (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

²⁵‘In view of the enormous economic superiority of these innovations’, wrote Landes, ‘one would expect the rest to have followed automatically. To understand why it did not … is to understand not only a good part of the history of these countries, but also something of the problem of economic development in general’. Landes, , Unbound Prometheus, p. 126.Google Scholar But if we did not ‘expect’ the rest to follow ‘automatically’, the question itself would not arise. See also Pollard, S., Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of Europe, 1760–1970 (Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar

²⁶Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 553.Google Scholar

²⁷Ibid., 553.

²⁸Ibid., 558–63. Morris argues that the backward technology of iron manufacture restricted the industry's output in the 18th century, but that the civilization, of course, generally adjusted to the limited supply of iron by using it very sparingly (Ibid., 560–1). But the increased demand did not produce technological innovation. In other words, backward technology limited the supply of iron, which was therefore used sparingly. But technology remained backward because demand was small enough to be absorbed through adjustments in the application of labour.

²⁹Ibid., 555–6.

³⁰Ibid., 562–3.

³¹Ibid., 562.

³²On the initiatives of traditional merchants, see Bayly, C. A., ‘Indian Merchants in a “Traditional” Setting: Benares, 1780–1830’, in Dewey, C. J. and Hopkins, A. G. (eds), The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India (London, 1978), p. 171–93Google Scholar; on technology, see Habib, I., ‘The Technology and Economy of Mughal India’, Indian Economic and Social History Review ‘henceforth IESHR’, XVII, 1 (1980), 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the dynamism of the commercial economy in 18th century South India and its subsequent decline, see Washbrook, D. A., ‘Some Notes in Market Relations and the Development of the Economy in South India, c. 1750–1850’. Paper presented to the Second Anglo-Dutch Workshop on Comparative Colonial History, Leiden, 09 1981.Google Scholar

³³The best statement of this case is to be found in Bagchi, , Private InvestmentGoogle Scholar; see also, Bagchi, A. K., ‘Foreign Capital and Economic Development in India: A Schematic View’, in Gough, K. and Sharma, Hari P., Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia (New York and London, 1973), pp. 43–76.Google Scholar

³⁴Perlin, F., ‘Proto-Industrialization in South Asia’, Past and Present, XCVIII (02 1983), 30–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 558.Google Scholar

³⁶Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire (London, 1968), p. 39.Google Scholar

³⁷‘There is scarcely one of these pre-conditions’, Habbakuk had observed nearly twenty years ago, ‘which cannot be shown to have been absent in the case of some acknowledged case of growth. Indeed, it is not difficult to cite cases where the absence of what is commonly regarded as a pre-condition proved to be a positive stimulus to growth.’ Habbakuk, , ‘Historical Experience’, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

³⁸Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 566.Google Scholar

³⁹Ibid., 553.

⁴⁰Ibid., 574.

⁴¹Ibid., 617.

⁴²In dealing with the development of the cotton textile industry, for instance, Morris focuses exclusively upon Bombay despite the fact that it constituted ‘a diminishing part of a still-expanding industry’ in the inter-war period. Ibid., 617, 572–83, 603–5, 616–24.

⁴³Ibid., 554.

⁴⁴Ibid.

⁴⁵However, on the early colonial period, see Bayly, C. A., Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 369–426Google Scholar; and Siddiqi, A., ‘The Business World of jamshetji Jejeebhoy’, IESHR, XIX, 3 and 4 (1982), 301–24Google Scholar; and for the nineteenth and twentieth century, see Timberg, T., The Marwaris: From Traders to Industrialists (New Delhi, 1978)Google Scholar, and Tripathi, D., The Dynamics of a Tradition: Kasturbhai Lalbhai and His Entrepreneurship (New Delhi, 1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁶Ray, , Industrialization in India.Google Scholar Ray's synthesizing history of industrialization combines an interesting treatment of the colonial state with an almost total neglect of labour or indeed the wider economic context. Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, touches upon the role of labour but finds its impact minimal.Google Scholar

⁴⁷So much so that one of the most valuable studies of ‘agrarian relations’ and land revenue systems in the early colonial period was able to disclaim ‘a full discussion of prices, productivity, cropping patterns and the like’. Metcalf, T. R., Land, Landlords and the British Raj: Northern India in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1979), p. xii.Google Scholar For a recent attempt at integration, see Bayly, , Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars.Google Scholar

⁴⁸Jeffrey, R., The Decline of Nayar Dominance (Brighton, 1976), p. xiv.Google Scholar To this armoury, we might also add the generic ‘westernization’. It is significant that in these approaches social change is represented by essentialist cultural descriptions.

⁴⁹Chandavarkar, R. S., ‘Labour and Society in Bombay, 1918–1940: Workplace Neighbourhood and Social Organization’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge 1983, pp. 30–58.Google Scholar

⁵⁰Fawcett, C. G. H., A Monograph on Dyes and Dyeing in the Bombay Presidency (Bombay, 1896), p. 38.Google Scholar

⁵¹For the case of the cotton textile industry in Bombay, see Chandavarkar, , ‘Labour and Society’ chs 1 and 4.Google Scholar

⁵²Ray, , Industrialization in India, pp. 27–8.Google Scholar

⁵³Simmons, C. P., ‘Indigenous Enterprise in the Indian Coal Mining Industry, c. 1835–1939’, IESHR, XIII, 2 (1976), 193–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁴In their recent study of the Bombay labour market, Joshi and Joshi discovered that their ‘family of criteria’ for distinguishing between the organized and unorganized sector could not ‘easily be used for empirical investigation’ and resorted instead to ‘the size of the establishment’ as the only workable criterion. See Joshi, H. and Joshi, V., Surplus Labour and the City: A Study of Bombay (Delhi, 1976), pp. 46–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁵Ray, , Industrialization in IndiaGoogle Scholar; Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’.Google Scholar

⁵⁶Bagchi, A. K., ‘De-Industrialization in Gangetic Bihar, 1809–1901’, in De, B. (ed.), Essays in Honour of Professor S. C. Sarkar (Delhi, 1976), pp. 499–522Google Scholar; Bagchi, A. K., ‘De-Industrialization in India in the Nineteenth Century: Some Theoretical Implications’, Journal of Development Studies, XII, 2 (1976), 135–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 668–76Google Scholar; Twomey, M. J., ‘Employment in Nineteenth Century Indian Textiles’, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, XX, 1 (1983), 37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pandey, G., ‘Economic Dislocation in Nineteenth Century Eastern Uttar Pradesh: Some Implications of the Decline of Artisanal Industry in Colonial India’, in Robb, P. (ed.), Rural South Asia: Linkages, Change and Development (London, 1983), pp. 89–129Google Scholar; Vicziany, M., ‘The De-Industrialization of India in the Nineteenth Century: A Methodological Critique of Amiya Kumar Bagchi’, IESHR, XIV, 2 (1979), 105–46Google Scholar; Bagchi, A. K., ‘A Reply’Google Scholar, Ibid., XIV, 2 (1979), 147–61.

⁵⁷Thorner, D. and Thorner, A., Land and Labour in India (Bombay, 1962), p. 70.Google Scholar

⁵⁸Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 670–1.Google Scholar

⁵⁹Baker, C. J., An Indian Rural Economy, 1880–1955: the Tamil Nad Countryside (New Delhi, 1984), pp. 393–413.Google Scholar On the growth of weaving workshops in the Deccan, see Joshi, N. M.. Urban Handicrafts of the Bombay Deccan (Poona, 1936).Google Scholar

⁶⁰Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, p. 404.Google Scholar

⁶¹Ibid., pp. 402–13.

⁶²Ibid., ch. 2; Tomlinson, , Political Economy, ch. 2.Google Scholar

⁶³Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 567.Google Scholar For the case of sugar, see Amin, S., Sugarcane and Sugar in Gorakhpur: An Inquiry into Peasant Production for Capitalist Enterprise in Colonial India (Delhi, 1984).Google Scholar

⁶⁴Simmons, , ‘Indigenous Entrepreneurship’, 200, 189–217.Google Scholar

⁶⁵In Japan, handlooms locked the cotton mills out of the domestic market until the 1920s and 1930s. For a general survey of the literature on Japanese industrialization which places it in a comparative context, see Tomlinson, B. R., ‘Writing History Sideways: Lessons for Indian Economic Historians from Meiji Japan’Google Scholar in this volume.

⁶⁶Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 567.Google Scholar

⁶⁷Ibid.

⁶⁸Simmons, , ‘Indigenous Entrepreneurship’, 200, 189–217.Google ScholarKling, B. B., Partner in Empire: Dwarkanath Tagore and the Age of Enterprise in Eastern India (Calcutta, 1981), pp. 73–121.Google Scholar

⁶⁹Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 583–92.Google Scholar

⁷⁰Ray, , Industrialization, pp. 74–93Google Scholar; Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 291–331Google Scholar; Wagle, D. M., ‘Imperial Preference and the Indian Steel Industry’, Economic History Review, XXXIV, 1 (1981), 120–31.Google Scholar

⁷¹Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 574.Google Scholar But Morris suggests a few lines later that the first mills ‘were not exceptionally costly ventures by local standards’ and fairly easy to establish. Ibid., 574–5.

⁷²These arguments are further elaborated in my doctoral thesis, Chandavarkar, , ‘Labour and Society’, pp. 23–8, 254–87.Google Scholar

⁷³Simmons, , ‘Indigenous Entrepreneurship’.Google Scholar

⁷⁴Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 157–217, 262–90.Google Scholar

⁷⁵Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, pp. 339–42.Google Scholar

⁷⁶Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 165–70.Google Scholar See also, Goswami, O., ‘Collaboration and Conflict: European and Indian Capitalists and the Jute Economy of Bengal, 1919–39’, IESHR, XIX, 2 (1982), 141–79Google Scholar; Tomlinson, B. R., ‘Colonial Firms and the Decline of Colonialism in Eastern India, 1914–1947’, Modern Asian Studies [henceforth, MAS] XV, 3 (1981), 455–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁷Morris, ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 557.Google Scholar

⁷⁸Ibid., 568–70.

⁷⁹Ibid., 574.

⁸⁰Ibid., 570.

⁸¹Simmons, , ‘Indigenous Entrepreneurship’.Google Scholar

⁸²Ibid., 585. How far does the notion of ‘timidity’ explain why European capital having come to dominate export-oriented industries remained reluctant to explore the possibilities of the domestic market?

⁸³Ibid., 580–1, 615–16.

⁸⁴Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 553.Google Scholar

⁸⁵Chandavarkar, , ‘Labour and Society’, ch. 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁶Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 573–5.Google Scholar

⁸⁷Vicziany, M., ‘Bombay Merchants and Structural Changes in the Export Community, 1850 to 1880’, in Chaudhuri, K. N. and Dewey, C. J. (eds), Economy and Society: Essays in Indian Economic and Social History (Delhi, 1979), pp. 163–97.Google Scholar

⁸⁸Chandavarkar, , ‘Labour and Society’, ch. 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁹Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 574.Google Scholar

⁹⁰Tripathi, D. and Mehta, M. J., ‘The Nagarsheth of Ahmedabad: The History of an Urban Institution in a Gujarati City’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (1978?), pp. 481–96Google Scholar; Gillion, K., Ahmedabad: A Study in Indian Urban History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), pp. 11–36.Google Scholar

⁹¹Gillion, , Ahmedabad, pp. 37–104Google Scholar; Tripathi, D., The Dynamics of a Tradition: Kasturbhai Lalbhai and his Entrepreneurship (New Delhi, 1981)Google Scholar; Mehta, M. J., The Ahmedabad Cotton Textile Industry: Genesis and Growth (Ahmedabad, 1982).Google Scholar For a critical appraisal of the books by Tripathi and Mehta, and some valuable comments on the Ahmedabad case, see Kanta Ray, Rajat, ‘Pedhis and Mills: the Historical Integration of the Formal and Informal Sectors in the Economy of Ahmedabad’, IESHR, XIX, 3 and 4 (1982), 387–96.Google Scholar

⁹²In the early 1930s, it was estimated that 39% of the total captal of the Ahmedabad mills was drawn from public deposits. Report of the Indian Central Banking Enquiry Committee, Majority Report (Calcutta, 1931), I, i, 278Google Scholar; Report of the Indian Tariff Board Regarding the Grant of Protection to the Cotton Textile Industry [henceforth, ITB, 1932] (Calcutta, 1932), pp. 82–4.Google Scholar

⁹³Report of the Indian Tariff Board (Cotton Textile Industry Enquiry), 1927 [henceforth, ITB2 1927], vol. 1, Report (Calcutta, 1927), 90.Google Scholar

⁹⁴Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, IV, Ahmedabad (Bombay, 1879), 68.Google Scholar

⁹⁵Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 90–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁶Mehta, , Cotton Mills, p. 178.Google Scholar

⁹⁷Report of the ITB, 1932, p. 84.Google Scholar

⁹⁸Several official reports and contemporary observers commented on the more progressive and efficient management of the Ahmedabad mills, but it was most extensively treated in the Report of the ITB, 1927, I, passim.

⁹⁹Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 573.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 229–37Google Scholar; Mehta, S. D., The Cotton Mills of India, 1854–1954 (Bombay, 1954), pp. 40–63Google Scholar; Rutnagur, S. M. (ed.), Bombay Industries: Cotton Textiles (Bombay, 1927).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹Manchester, Chamber of Commerce, Bombay and Lancashire Cotton Spinning Enquiry: Minutes and Evidence (Manchester, 1888)Google Scholar; Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 229–37Google Scholar; Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, 572–83Google Scholar; Mehta, , Cotton Mills, pp. 40–63Google Scholar. Farnie, D. A., The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, 1815–96 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 81–134.Google Scholar

¹⁰²Gillion, , Ahmedabad, pp. 74–104Google Scholar; Mehta, , The Ahmedabad Cotton Textile Industry.Google Scholar In 1900, there were 10,000 weavers operating in Ahmedabad and as late as 1914 there were said to be 1000 looms in the town, see Gillion, , Ahmedabad, pp. 47–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰³Edwardes, S. M., Memoir of Rao Bahadur Ranchodlal Chotalal (Exeter, 1920)Google Scholar; Gillion, , Ahmedabad, pp. 81–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴Gillion, , Ahmedabad, p. 88, fn. 16.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵Tripathi, , Dynamics of a Tradition, pp. 45–50Google Scholar; Gillion, , Ahmedabad, pp. 46–50.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶Charlesworth, N., ‘Rich Peasants and Poor Peasants in late Nineteenth Century Maharashtra’, in Dewey, C. J. and Hopkins, A. G. (eds), The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India (London, 1978), pp. 97–113Google Scholar; Bates, C. N., ‘The Nature of Social Change: The Kheda District, 1818–1918; MAS, XV, 4 (1981). 771–821.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷Bagchi, , Private Investment, p. 234, table 7.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸Bombay Millowners' Association, Annual Reports; Bagchi, , Private Investment, p. 234, table 7.4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹Mehta, M. M., Structure of Indian Industries (Bombay, 1955), pp. 163–73.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰Bayly, , Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars, pp. 440–9Google Scholar; Report of the Indian Industrial Commission, 1916–18 (Calcutta, 1918), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

¹¹¹Report of the ITS, 1927, I, 25–6.Google Scholar

¹¹²Tomlinson, , Political Economy, pp. 31–4.Google Scholar Of course, in several respects this expansion betrayed a rather fragile character. It took the form of import substitution in a period in which the purchasing power of the peasantry was declining. It was not accompanied by rising investment in new plant and machinery. It was facilitated by a range of contingent factors and special circumstances: tariff protection which, though not wholely effective, helped the growing centres rather more than Bombay for whom in large measure it had been designed; the disruption of international trade and the decline of Lancashire in particular; and the outbreak of war which rescued the industry when it had appeared to reach the limits of import substitution by the late 1930s. The difficulties underlying this spurt of growth was also demonstrated in the acute problems faced in the 1950s by many of the new centres of textile production which emerged in this period. For an insight into the demand for cotton textiles, see Bagchi, , Private Investment, pp. 237–53Google Scholar; on machinery imports, ibid., tables 7.10 and 7.11, pp. 258–9, and Kirk, R. and Simmons, C. P., ‘Lancashire and the Equipping of Indian Cotton Mills: A Study of Textile Machinery and Supply, 1854–1939’, in Ballhatchet, K. and Taylor, D. (eds), Changing South Asia: Economy and Society (London, 1984), pp. 169–81Google Scholar; on the relationship between town and country during depression, Tomlinson, , Political Economy, ch. 2Google Scholar and Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, passimGoogle Scholar; on tariffs, see Chatterji, B., ‘The Political Economy of “Discriminating Protection”: The Case of Textiles in the 1920s’, IESHR, XX, 3 (1983), 239–75Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Business and Politics in the 1930s: Lancashire and the Making of the Indo-British Trade Agreement’, MAS, XV, 3 (1981), 527–73Google Scholar; Dewey, C. J., ‘The End of Imperialism of Free Trade: The Eclipse of the Lancashire Lobby and the Concession of Fiscal Autonomy to India’, in Dewey, and Hopkins, (eds), The Imperial Impact, pp. 35–67Google Scholar, and Drummond, I., British Economic Policy and the Empire, 1919–1939 (London, 1939), ch.4.Google Scholar

¹¹³Baker, C. J., ‘Debt and Depression in Madras, 1929–36’, in Dewey, and Hopkins, (eds), Imperial Impact, pp. 233–42Google Scholar; idem, An Indian Rural Economy, passim; Tomlinson, , Political Economy, ch. 2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴Mehta, , Structure of Indian Industries, pp. 164–73Google Scholar; Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 4–28, 100–23.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵Bagchi, , Private Investment, p. 252.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, pp. 339–72.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷Pearse, A., The Cotton Industry of India: Being the Report of a Journey to India (Manchester, 1930), pp. 105–13Google Scholar; Shiva Rao, B., The Industrial Worker in India (London, 1939), p. 121Google Scholar; Ramaswamy, E. A., The Worker and His Union: A Study of South India (Delhi, 1977), pp. 17–32Google Scholar; Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, pp. 361ffGoogle Scholar; Murphy, E. D., Unions in Conflict: A Comparative Study of Four South Indian Textile Centres, 1918–1939 (New Delhi, 1981)Google Scholar; Perlin, E., ‘Eyes Without Sight: Education and Millworkers in South India, 1939–76’, IESHR, XVIII, 3 and 4 (1981), 263–86.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸Baker, , An Indian Rural Economy, p. 353.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹Proceedings of the Textile Labour Inquiry Committee [henceforth, TLIC], Main Inquiry, Oral Evidence, MrStones, F., Managing Director, Sassoon Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, File 70, 3450–51Google Scholar, Maharashtra State Archives [henceforth, MSA].

¹²⁰Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 100–8.Google Scholar

¹²¹Ibid., I 133–4; for a narrative of these general strikes, see Newman, R., Workers and Unions in Bombay, 1918–29: A Study of Organization in the Cotton Mills (Canberra, 1981), pp. 142–8, 153–9.Google Scholar

¹²²Chatterji, , ‘Fiscal Autonomy’, and ‘Business and Polities’Google Scholar; and Dewey, , ‘The End of Imperialism of Free Trade’.Google Scholar

¹²³Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 124–67.Google Scholar

¹²⁴Report of the TLIC, vol. II, Final Report (Bombay, 1953), 183.Google Scholar

¹²⁵Ibid., II, 187, table no. 44.

¹²⁶I have attempted to discuss this issue at greater length in Chandavarkar, ‘Labour and Society’, ch. 4.

¹²⁷Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 48.Google Scholar

¹²⁸Proceedings of the TLIC, Main Inquiry, Oral Evidence, Representatives of the Bombay Millowners’ Association [henceforth BMOA], File 57-A, 63, MSA.

¹²⁹Report of the Bombay Strike Enquiry Committee, vol. I (Bombay, 1929)Google Scholar; Newman, , Workers and Unions, pp. 168–209Google Scholar; Chandavarkar, R., ‘Workers’ Politics and the Mill Districts of Bombay between the Wars’ MAS, XV, 3 (1981), 634–8.Google Scholar

¹³⁰Report of the Court of Enquiry into a Trade Dispute between several Textile Mills and their Workmen (Bombay, 1929)Google Scholar; Newman, , Workers and Unions, pp. 211–50Google Scholar; Chandavarkar, , ‘Workers’ Polities’, 636.Google Scholar

¹³¹Labour Office, Bombay, Wages and Unemployment in the Bombay Cotton Textile Industry (Bombay, 1934).Google Scholar

¹³²Report of the TLIC, II, 188–9.Google Scholar The constraints thus exercised by workers upon entrepreneurial choice have often been perceived as a reflection of their pre-industrial mentalities, dysfunctional to the industrial setting. However, entrepreneurs in Britain, at the height of its industrial ‘maturity’, similarly showed a propensity to shelter in traditional markets rather than effect fundamental changes which while increasing their productivity and their competitiveness also raised the spectre of industrial action.

¹³³Report of the ITB, 1927, I, 143–5.Google Scholar

¹³⁴Ibid.

¹³⁵Ibid., I, 143–5.

¹³⁶Ibid., I, 144.

¹³⁷Proceedings of the TLIC, Main Inquiry, Oral evidence, BMOA, File 57-A, MSA.

¹³⁸Morris, M. D., The Emergence of an Industrial Labour Force: A Study of the Bombay Cotton Mills, 1857–1947 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), p. 107.Google Scholar

¹³⁹Chandavarkar, , ‘Labour and Society’, ch. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰Chandavarkar, , ‘Workers' Polities’, 603–47.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹Royal Commission on Labour [henceforth, RCL], Foreign Report, vol. II, The Colonies and the Indian EmpireGoogle Scholar, Memorandum on the Labour Question in India, Evidence, MrCampbell, J. M., Collector, Land Revenue, Excise and Opium, Bombay, Parliamentary Papers, 1892, XXXVI, 128.Google Scholar

¹⁴²Karnik, V. B., Strikes in India (Bombay, 1967), pp. 3–56Google Scholar; Commissioner of Police, Bombay, to Secretary, Government of Bombay, Judicial Department, no. 10503–6-R, 27 Aug. 1908, Government of Bombay, General Department, vol. 114 of 1908, reprinted in Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India (Collected from Bombay Government Records), vol. II, 1885–1920 (Bombay, 1958), 256–75.Google Scholar

¹⁴³RCL, Evidence, MrCampbell, J. M., Collector, Land Revenue, Customs, and Opium, Bombay to the Chief Secretary, Bombay, PP, 1892, XXXVI, 129Google Scholar; Labour Office, Bombay, Report on the Wages, Hours of Work and Conditions of Employment in the Textile Industries (Cotton, Silk, Wool and Hosiery) in the Bombay Presidency (including Sind), May 1934, General Wage Census, Part I—Perennial Factories, Third Report (Bombay, 1937), p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴Chandavarkar, , ‘Workers' Politics’.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵Karnik, , Strikes, pp. 265–6Google Scholar; Cholia, R. P., Dock Labourers in Bombay (Bombay, 1941).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶For a version of this argument, see Morris, , ‘Large-Scale Industry’, especially, 558–66.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷Habib, , ‘Technology and Economy’.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸Stokes, E. T., The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India (Cambridge, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁹Stokes, E. T., ‘Dynamism and Enervation in North Indian Agriculture: The Historical Dimension’Google Scholar, in ibid., pp. 228–42.

¹⁵⁰Kumar, D. and Krishnamurthy, J., ‘Regional and International Economic Disparities Since the Industrial Revolution: The Indian Evidence’, in Bairoch, P. and Levy-Leboyer, M. (eds), Disparities in Economic Development Since the Industrial Revolution (London, 1981), pp. 361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵¹Heston, A. and Summers, R., ‘Comparative Indian Economic Growth: 1870 to 1970’, American Economic Review, LXX, 2 (1980), 97.Google Scholar

¹⁵²Dewey, C. J., ‘The Agricultural Output of an Indian Province: The Punjab, 1870–1940’.Google Scholar Paper read to the Economic History Seminar, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, 30 April 1973; idem, ‘Some Multiplier Effects of Military Expenditure in British India: The Case of the Upper Sind SagarDoab, 1849–1947’. Paper read to the Anglo-German Workshop on Arrested Development in India, Heidelberg, , 26–2807, 1984.Google Scholar

¹⁵³The ‘regional economy’ before 1857 is examined in the CEHI, II, 242–375.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴For instance, the imperial dimension is played down in the judicious and positive account offered by Charlesworth, N., British Rule and the Indian Economy, 1800–1914 (London, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵Bayly, C. A., ‘Putting Together the Eighteenth Century in India: Trade, Money and the “Pre-Colonial” Political Order’, paper presented to the Second Anglo-Dutch Workshop on Comparative Colonial History, 09 1981Google Scholar; Habib, I., ‘Monetary Systems and Prices’, in Raychaudhuri, T. and Habib, I. (eds), CEHI (Cambridge, 1982), I, 360–81Google Scholar; Perlin, , ‘Proto-Industrialization’Google Scholar; Hasan, A., ‘The Silver Currency Output of the Mughal Empire and Prices in India in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, IESHR, VI, 1 (1969), 85–116Google Scholar; Richards, J. F., ‘Mughal State Finance and the Premodern World Economy’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, XXIII, 2 (1981), 285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760 (London, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁶Washbrook, D. A., ‘Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India’, MAS, XV, 3 (1981), 649–721.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷In the case of India, this point has been most extensively documented in Tomlinson, , Political Economy, and his articles, ‘India and the British Empire, 1880–1935’, IESHR, XII, 4 (1975), 339–80Google Scholar and ‘India and the British Empire, 1935–47’, IESHR, XII, 3 (1976), 331–52.Google Scholar