Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:21:05.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIV. Handicrafts in India and Indonesia in the Nineteenth Century: Some Tentative Observations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2010

J. Krishnamurty
J. Krishnamurty
Affiliation:
Delhi School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When one looks at the phenomenon of declining handicrafts either in terms of the impact of modern technology or in terms of the onslaught of imperialism, India and Indonesia are obvious cases to examine in relation to the nineteenth century. For India there is a well developed literature, much of t i of contemporary nineteenth and early twentieth century vintage; the literature for Indonesia, however, appears somewhat thin in comparison. On closer examination there appear to be many questions of a common nature raised by the literature on the two countries and potentially fruitful issues awaiting investigation in a comparative perspective. To illustrate these possibilities and to stimulate discussion I attempt in this paper to draw upon some work I am doing on two major Indian handicraft industries, textiles and rice processing, and relate some findings of mine and of others to what has been done (or can be done) on these industries in Indonesia.

Type
Articles
Information
Itinerario , Volume 11 , Issue 1: India and Indonesia from the 1830s to 1914: The Heyday of Colonial Rule , March 1987 , pp. 253 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Research Institute for History, Leiden University 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 I am conscious that I may have missed important secondary works; however, I was reassured by Van Gelderen who states: ‘There is, incidentally, no branch of Native economic activity that has received so little systematic study, and consequently is as poorly known, as handicrafts’; see Gelderen, J. Van in Wertheim, W. F. et al. eds., Indonesian Economics: The Concept of Dualism in Theory and Practice (The Hague 1961) 142Google Scholar.

2 The discussion here relates largely, but not exclusively, to cotton textiles.

3 See Morris, M. D. et al., The Indian Economy in the Nineteenth Century: A Symposium (Delhi 1969) 159–165Google Scholar.

4 Report of the Textile Enauiry Committee I. Government of India (Delhi 1954 ) 16–17Google Scholar.

5 Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on Handlooms. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries (Karachi 1956) 21Google Scholar.

6 See my chapter ‘The Distribution of the Indian Working Force, 1901-1951’ in: Chaudhuri, K.N. and Dewey, C. J. eds., Economy and Society: Essays in Indian Economic and History (Delhi 1979) 273Google Scholar.

7 Twomey, Michael J., ‘Employment in Nineteenth Century Indian Textiles’, Explorations in Economic History 20 (1983) 37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See my chapter in Chaudhuri and Dewey eds., Economy and Society, for a fuller presentation.

9 Chatterton, A. in Indian Trade Journal April 9 (1908) quoted byGoogle ScholarChatterjee, A. C., Notes on the Industries of the United Provinces (Allahabad 1908) 26Google Scholar.

10 See Handloom Weaving in the Madras Presidency. Government of Madras, Department of Industries (report by D. M. Amalsad, Textile Expert to the Government of Madras) (Madras 1924)23.

11 Report of the Fact-Finding Committee (Handloom and Mills). Government of India (Calcutta 1942) 31Google Scholar.

12 The estimates are based on Bell's figures for 1896-97 to 1900-01; to these I have added another 480 million yards, which Twomey estimates to be the annual output oCkhadi (hand spun and woven cloth) during 1895-99, which was not taken into account by Bell; see Bell, R. D., Notes on the Indian Textile Industry with Special Reference to Handweaving. Bombay Presidency, Department of Industries, Bulletin 6 (Bombay 1926) 16–17.Google Scholar

13 Notice that the results depend on the estimated income an d price elasticities for 1880-1930. But the results would come through even if elasticities were somewhat different, but provided Indian handloom exports in about 1800 were significant.

14 See Hiroshi, Matsuo, The Development of the Javanese Cotton Industry (Tokyo 1970) 5–14Google Scholar.

15 In Bombay Presidency, the demand for women's garments remained with the handloom; but in.Madras, the imported cloth managed to make serious inroads, see Enthoven, R. E., Monograph on Cotton Fabrics in the Bombay Presidency (Bombay 1897) 35Google Scholar and Edgar Thurston, Monograph on the Cotton Fabrics Industry of the Madras Presidency, reprinted in Art and through the Ages (New Delhi 1982)27.

16 See Oki, Akira, ‘A Note on the History of the Textile Industry in West Sumatra’ in: Anrooij, F. Van et al. eds., Between People and Statistics: Essays in Modern Indonesian History Presented Professor P. Creutienberg (The Hague 1979) 147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Hiroshi, Matsuo, Development of the Javanese Cotton Industry, 5Google Scholar.

18 Ibidem, 17-18.

19 Ibidem, 17.

20 Oki, ,‘A Note’, 152Google Scholar.

21 Report of the Fad-Finding Committee (Handloom and Mills) 6, 128.

22 The dynamic interactions between Indian and Indonesian textiles deserve a separate and fuller treatment taking into account demonstration effects, technological diffusion and so on. A study of this issue, taking a much longer time span from at least the eighteenth century, is overdue.

23 See Hill, Hal, ‘Choice of Technique in the Indonesia Weaving Industry’ (Ph.D. Thesis, A.N.U. Canberra 1979) 43Google Scholar.

24 See Hill, , ‘Choice of Technique’, 44–45Google Scholar and Boeke, J. H., The Evolution of the Netherlands Indies Economy (New York 1946) 122–125Google Scholar.

25 ‘Occupational Pattern of the Indian Union, 1901-1951’. Planning Commission, Government of India (mimeo, Delhi 1952). I concentrate in the discussion on rice processing, ignoring other processing of grain and pulses. I do this to facilitate comparison with Indonesia.

26 Mukherjee, Mukul, ‘Impact of Modernisation on Women's Occupations: A Case Study of the Rice-husking Industry of Bengal’, Indian Economic and Social History Review 20 (1983) 27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Krishnamurty, J., ‘The Deindustrialization of Gangetic Bihar in the Nineteenth Century: Another Look at the Evidence’, Indian Economic and Social History Review 22 (1985) 399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 At the all-India level the number of women reported to be engaged in the milling, polishing and dehusking of grain fell from 815 thousand to 248 thousand between 1901 and 1951.

29 See C. Peter Timmer, ‘Choice of Technique in Rice Milling on Java’ (Agricultural Development Council Reprint, September 1974) (with a comment by William L. Collier et al. and a reply by Timmer) 1.

30 Ibidem, 18. For a better understanding of long term trends the role of rice mills run by the Chinese near Batavia during the eighteenth century and of deliveries of rice (as rent) to the rice mills under the Culture System need investigation. I am indebted to Dr. Boomgaard for drawing my attention to these points.

31 Hiroshi, Matsuo, Developmentof the Javanese Cotton Industry, 1–4Google Scholar.

32 See my paper, ‘The Organisation of Traditional Industry: Gangetic Bihar in the Early Nineteenth Century’ (Discussion Paper No. 56, Development Economics Research Centre, University of Warwick, 12 1984)Google Scholar.

33 See Hiroshi, Matsuo, Development of thejavanese Cotton Industry, 17, 26–48Google Scholar.

34 See Timmer, C. Peter etal., ‘Choice of Technique’, 12Google Scholar.