BharatNotes Why this chapter matters for UPSC: This chapter is essential for GS1 economic history — it explains how Britain systematically destroyed India's pre-colonial industrial base, especially textiles and iron, through discriminatory tariff policy. UPSC tests the "drain of wealth" thesis, the de-industrialization debate (Bipan Chandra vs. revisionists), the collapse of Dhaka muslin, and India's industrial response via TISCO and the Swadeshi Movement. The Tata story also appears in GS3 (Indian economy) and Ethics (entrepreneurship under adversity).
PART 1 — Quick Reference Tables
India's Pre-Colonial Textile Industry — Key Facts
| Aspect | Detail | UPSC Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Global share | India supplied ~25% of world's industrial output in 1750 (Angus Maddison data) | Economic drain argument baseline |
| Dhaka muslin | "Woven Air" (Dhakai muslin); so fine that 10 yards weighed less than 100 grams; exported to Europe, West Asia | Frequently asked in Prelims |
| Key textile centres | Dhaka (muslin), Murshidabad (silk), Surat (gold/silver thread brocade), Banaras (Banarasi silk), Kanchipuram (South Indian silk), Ahmedabad (cotton) | Regional diversity of crafts |
| Export destinations | Europe, West Asia, Southeast Asia; Indian textiles were luxury goods globally | India's pre-colonial trade surplus |
| Chintz | Printed/painted cotton cloth from South India; hugely popular in Europe; "calico" (from Calicut/Kozhikode) | Etymology questions |
| Artisan communities | Julaha (Muslim weavers), Tanti (Bengal weavers), Sale/Kaikollar (Tamil Nadu weavers) | Jati/occupational community link |
British Tariff Policy — Asymmetric Discrimination
| Direction of Trade | Tariff Rate | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| British machine-made textiles imported to India | Minimal / duty-free (post-1813 with end of EIC monopoly) | Flooded Indian market at low prices |
| Indian textiles exported to Britain | 70–80% import duty | Priced Indian goods out of British market |
| Indian raw cotton exported to Britain | Low duty (encouraged) | India became raw material supplier |
| British finished cotton goods to India | Very low / zero | One-way trade dependency created |
Surviving Textile Traditions — Why Some Survived
| Textile | Centre | Reason for Survival |
|---|---|---|
| Banarasi silk sarees | Varanasi | Ritual/religious demand; wedding use; zari work machines could not replicate |
| Kanchipuram silk | Tamil Nadu | Temple-town patronage; South Indian bridal tradition; distinct weave |
| Surat brocade | Gujarat | Gold/silver thread (zari); festive demand; artisan skill in metal-thread weaving |
| Handloom cooperatives | Bengal, UP | Organised under nationalist and later government patronage |
| Pochampally ikat | Telangana | Distinct resist-dyeing technique; craft identity |
PART 2 — Detailed Notes
India's Industrial Pre-eminence Before Colonialism
De-industrialization: The process by which an economy's industrial and manufacturing sector shrinks — workers lose jobs in manufacturing and move to lower-productivity agriculture. In the Indian context, "de-industrialization thesis" refers specifically to the argument that British colonial policy deliberately or structurally dismantled India's pre-existing manufacturing industries, especially textiles and iron.
Drain of Wealth (Dada Bhai Naoroji): The theory that British rule extracted wealth from India — through trade surplus appropriated by Britain, Home Charges, salaries of British civil servants remitted to Britain — without equivalent return. Naoroji calculated this drain in "Poverty and Un-British Rule in India" (1901).
Before the arrival of the British East India Company as a territorial power, India was one of the world's leading manufacturing nations. Angus Maddison's historical GDP estimates suggest India accounted for roughly 25% of global industrial output in 1750. This was not factory production — it was artisan production on a vast scale, organised through merchant networks, guild-like structures, and caste-based occupational specialisation.
Indian textiles dominated global trade. Dhaka muslin was so fine it earned poetic names: "Woven Air" (bafta hawa), "Running Water" (ab-i-rawan), "Evening Dew" (shabnam). European courts prized Indian chintz (printed cotton). The term "calico" entered English from Calicut. "Dungaree" comes from Dongri (a Mumbai neighbourhood where coarse cotton was made). Indian weavers were not primitive cottage workers — they were skilled professionals with generations of craft knowledge, working within sophisticated merchant credit networks.
The Mechanism of De-industrialization
How British policy destroyed Indian textiles — step by step:
1813 — End of EIC monopoly: The East India Company's monopoly on Indian trade ended. British manufacturers lobbied Parliament to open India as a market for their machine-made cotton goods produced by the new Industrial Revolution factories of Lancashire and Manchester.
Asymmetric tariffs: Indian textiles entering Britain faced tariffs of 70–80%. British textiles entering India faced minimal or no duties. This was a policy choice — not a market outcome.
Machine vs. handloom: A Lancashire power-loom could produce cloth far more cheaply per yard than an Indian handloom weaver. At equal tariff rates, Indian handloom would struggle. With Indian goods taxed out of Britain while British goods entered India freely, the outcome was inevitable.
India restructured as raw material supplier: Instead of exporting finished textiles, India now exported raw cotton to Britain, which manufactured it and sold the cloth back to India. India's role in the global economy was inverted — from manufacturer to raw material supplier.
The human cost was enormous. Dhaka, once a city of 150,000 people sustained by muslin weaving, shrank to fewer than 30,000 by around 1840. Bengal's famous weaving towns were depopulated. Weavers who had earned skilled artisan wages were forced into agricultural labour — swelling the ranks of a land-scarce peasantry and deepening rural poverty.
UPSC GS1 — De-industrialization Debate: The "de-industrialization thesis" is associated with Bipan Chandra and earlier nationalist economists like Romesh Chunder Dutt ("Economic History of India", 1901). The argument is that British trade and tariff policy intentionally or structurally destroyed Indian manufacturing. Revisionist historians (Morris D. Morris, and later Tirthankar Roy) argue that Indian textiles were already declining due to internal factors, and that the British impact was overstated. UPSC Mains may ask you to critically evaluate this debate. The standard UPSC answer supports the nationalist interpretation while acknowledging complexity.
The Collapse of Dhaka Muslin — A Case Study
Dhaka muslin was made from a unique variety of cotton called Phuti karpas, grown only in a small area near the Meghna river (present-day Bangladesh). The fineness of the weave was achieved by a hereditary community of weavers with extraordinarily skilled fingers — a craft knowledge passed down through generations.
British commercial reports from the 1820s–1840s document the decline: weavers could not sell their cloth at prices that covered their costs once the market was flooded with cheap British machine-made cloth. Some accounts describe weavers cutting off their own thumbs in despair — though historians debate whether this was symbolic resistance, metaphor, or actual occurrence. What is certain is that the craft community dispersed and the knowledge was lost. Attempts to revive Dhaka muslin in the 21st century (notably a Bangladesh government project to identify surviving Phuti karpas plants) have met with only partial success.
Indian Iron and Steel — From Wootz to TISCO
Wootz steel: A high-carbon steel produced in South India (Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Karnataka) from at least the 1st century BCE. It was exported via Arab traders to the Middle East, where it became the famous "Damascus steel" — prized for swords that could hold an exceptionally sharp edge. European metallurgists puzzled over its properties for centuries. Wootz was made in small clay crucibles using a specific ore, charcoal, and plant material combination — a closely guarded craft secret.
India had a sophisticated iron and steel industry long before British colonialism. Wootz steel reached the Roman Empire and later equipped the armies of the Islamic world. Traditional iron smelting (using locally mined iron ore and charcoal) supplied agricultural tools, weapons, and structural iron across the subcontinent.
British industrialisation produced cheap pig iron and later steel. These imports, combined with the dismantling of local patronage networks (zamindars and rulers who had supported local craftsmen), undercut traditional iron smelters just as they had undercut weavers.
TISCO — Indian Industrial Nationalism
UPSC GS1/GS3 — TISCO as a Symbol: The founding of TISCO is a recurring exam topic. Key facts:
- Full name: Tata Iron and Steel Company
- Founded: 1907
- Location: Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (then Bihar province; named after Jamsetji Tata)
- Founder: Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata (1839–1904) — conceived the project; did not live to see it completed
- Completed by: Dorab Tata (elder son) and Ratan Tata (younger son) — sons, NOT nephews — under J.N. Tata's vision; also assisted by cousin R.D. Tata
- Context: British argued Indians could not build or manage a modern steel plant. TISCO proved them wrong.
- Swadeshi connection: During World War I, TISCO supplied steel to the British war effort — partly because British steel was unavailable. This gave TISCO a major boost and vindicated Indian industrial capacity.
- Significance: Symbol of Indian entrepreneurship, economic nationalism, and the "Make in India" spirit a century before the phrase was coined.
Jamsetji Tata visited the iron and steel regions of Britain and the United States in the late 19th century. He identified Jamshedpur — at the confluence of the Subarnarekha and Kharkai rivers, near iron ore deposits and coalfields — as the ideal location. He lobbied the colonial government for support and raised capital from Indian investors. He died in 1904 before the plant opened, but his vision was realised in 1907.
TISCO's founding was a political as much as an industrial act. It challenged the colonial assumption that India was fit only for raw material production, not manufacturing. It inspired the nationalist argument for industrialisation as the path to economic independence.
The Swadeshi Movement and Industrial Revival
The Partition of Bengal (1905) and the resulting Swadeshi Movement gave a political dimension to the economic argument. Nationalists called for:
- Boycott of British goods (especially Manchester cloth and Liverpool salt)
- Use of Indian-made goods (swadeshi — "of one's own country")
- Establishment of Indian industries — textile mills, match factories, chemical works, banks
The Swadeshi Movement was the first mass economic protest in Indian nationalism. It drew on the pre-existing critique of de-industrialization. Mill owners in Ahmedabad and Bombay benefited. Handloom weavers gained a new political identity as producers of patriotic cloth — a theme that would culminate in Gandhi's championing of the charkha (spinning wheel) as the symbol of self-reliance.
[Additional] 7a. Dhaka Muslin — Science of the Craft and 21st-Century Revival
The chapter covers Dhaka muslin's collapse but lacks the scientific explanation of what made it unique, the specific botanical/biological basis, and the 21st-century revival efforts — tested in UPSC GS1 (Art and Culture) and GS3 (Textiles, Traditional Industries).
Key Terms — Dhaka Muslin:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Dhaka/Dacca Muslin | Extremely fine handwoven cotton textile from the Dhaka region (now Bangladesh); made from Phuti karpas cotton; was the finest textile in the world — Count 300–1,000 (thread count per inch) vs modern fine cotton at 80–200 |
| Phuti karpas | Species of cotton: Gossypium arboreum var. neglectum — unique to the Meghna river floodplain of Bengal; the fibres are extraordinarily thin (width ~12–15 micrometers vs normal cotton ~20 micrometers); only grows near specific Meghna floodplain conditions |
| Count (Ne) | Measurement of cotton yarn fineness — higher count = finer thread; 1 Ne means 840 yards (768m) per pound; Dhaka muslin reached Ne 500–1,000 (1 pound of yarn = 300–500 miles of thread) |
| Weavers' guild | Hereditary weaving families (Julahas/Momins) of Dhaka — each family produced just 2–3 yards of finest muslin per week; skill passed from father to son over generations; deliberately maintained as secret craft |
| Dacca Muslin brand names | "Woven Air" (bafta hawa), "Running Water" (ab-i-rawan), "Evening Dew" (shabnam) — marketing names for different quality grades by Persian/Mughal courts |
[Additional] Dhaka Muslin — Science, Collapse, and Revival (GS1 — Art and Culture / GS3 — Traditional Industries):
What made Dhaka muslin scientifically unique:
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Cotton variety | Gossypium arboreum var. neglectum (Phuti karpas) — unique to Meghna floodplain near Dhaka |
| Fibre diameter | ~12–15 micrometres (vs standard cotton 18–20 micrometers, vs silk 10–13 micrometres) — extraordinarily thin |
| Length-to-diameter ratio | Very high — enables extremely fine spinning |
| Why the Meghna floodplain matters | Specific combination of alluvial soil, humidity, temperature, and seasonal flooding produces the unique Phuti karpas characteristics; the cotton planted elsewhere loses fineness within one or two generations |
| Weaving conditions | Best weaving done in early morning mist — humidity kept threads from breaking while being worked at near-invisible fineness; fingers of weavers had to be extraordinarily sensitive — often said the most skilled weavers were those with the most delicate "wet fingers" (kept in water) |
The economics of Dhaka muslin in its prime:
| Period | Market | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Mughal period (16th–18th c.) | Royal courts of Delhi, Persia, Central Asia, Ottoman Turkey | Equivalent to gold by weight for finest pieces |
| European trade | Dutch, English, French East India Companies ordered muslin for European courts | Premium prices; Indian weavers could earn good livelihoods |
| Late 18th century | Pre-Industrial Revolution; handloom still competitive | Thriving industry; ~100,000 weavers in Dhaka region |
Mechanism of collapse (step by step):
- 1813: East India Company's trade monopoly ended; Lancashire textile manufacturers lobbied for free access to Indian markets
- Asymmetric tariffs: Indian muslin exported to Britain faced 70–80% import duties; British machine-made cloth entered India with 2–3.5% duty
- Power loom advantage: A Lancashire power loom could produce cloth ~300 times faster than a Dhaka handloom; even with higher thread count, mechanised cloth undercut handloom prices
- Weaver displacement: Dhaka's population shrank from ~150,000 to fewer than 30,000 by ~1840; former weavers became agricultural labourers
- Knowledge loss: With the hereditary weaving families dispersed, the specific techniques — passed orally from father to son over centuries — were largely lost within a generation
The "thumb-cutting" story: The famous story that the British cut off the thumbs of Dhaka weavers to eliminate competition. Historical status: Not documented in contemporary records; likely a metaphorical/symbolic narrative that emerged later to describe the violence of economic destruction. No British official records confirm it. Historians (Rosie Llewellyn-Jones et al.) note it may have been a folk metaphor — weavers could no longer make a living, effectively "cut off" from their livelihood. UPSC note: This story is not factually established; the actual destruction was economic, not physical.
21st-century revival:
| Initiative | Detail |
|---|---|
| Bangladesh Geographical Indication | Bangladesh obtained GI tag for "Muslin of Dhaka" in 2021 (within Bangladesh's GI framework) |
| Phuti karpas rediscovery | A Bangladesh government project (2014–20) located surviving Phuti karpas plants in the Dhaka/Comilla region and established a seed bank |
| Weaving revival programme | Bangladesh National Museum + Bangladeshi government funded training of weavers using rediscovered Phuti karpas |
| Current status | Limited revival achieved — small quantities of Dhaka muslin now produced using traditional methods; retails at premium prices; a piece of ~6 yards costs USD 500–3,000 depending on fineness |
| Limitation | The full knowledge of Ne 500–1000 fineness has not been fully recovered; current best production is Ne 200–300 |
Wootz (Damascus) Steel — complementary topic:
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| What it is | High-carbon steel (~1.5% carbon) produced in South India (Tamil Nadu, AP, Karnataka) using small clay crucibles |
| How old | Evidence from at least 3rd century BCE; possibly older |
| Arab trade name | "Pulad" in Persian; became "Damascus steel" in Europe (traded via Damascus) |
| Properties | Extremely hard yet flexible; could cut a falling silk handkerchief; distinctive water-pattern (wootz) visible on polished surface due to carbide banding |
| Knowledge loss | The exact process lost by 19th century — colonial disruption of patronage networks, cheaper British iron, loss of specific charcoal and ore combinations |
| Modern metallurgy | Scientists at IISc Bangalore, Sheffield University have partly recreated wootz steel; the exact process still debated |
UPSC synthesis: Dhaka muslin = GS1 Art and Culture + GS3 Traditional Industries. Key exam facts: Cotton variety = Gossypium arboreum var. neglectum (Phuti karpas) = unique to Meghna floodplain; fibre diameter = ~12–15 micrometres (thinner than standard cotton); count = Ne 500–1,000 (finest in world); brand names = "Woven Air," "Running Water," "Evening Dew"; collapse = asymmetric tariffs (70-80% on Indian to Britain vs 2-3% on British to India); Dhaka population shrank 150,000 → <30,000 by ~1840; thumb-cutting = NOT historically documented (metaphorical narrative); Bangladesh GI tag = 2021; Wootz = high-carbon steel = South India = ~3rd century BCE = known as Damascus steel in Europe. Prelims trap: Phuti karpas is a variety of Gossypium arboreum (NOT Gossypium hirsutum — G. hirsutum is American upland cotton, the dominant commercial variety today; Dhaka muslin was G. arboreum var. neglectum); the thumb-cutting story is NOT historically verified (frequently presented as fact in some sources; it is a folk narrative, not documented history); wootz steel is a South Indian product (NOT North Indian or Central Asian — it originated in the Deccan and South India; "Damascus" steel just passed through Damascus in trade).
[Additional] 7b. De-industrialisation Debate — Bipan Chandra vs Morris D. Morris
The chapter presents de-industrialisation as settled fact but the historiographical debate between nationalist and revisionist economists is a core UPSC Mains topic tested for critical analysis.
Key Terms — De-industrialisation Debate:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| De-industrialisation thesis | Argument that British colonial policy deliberately or structurally caused the decline of Indian manufacturing — especially textiles — through asymmetric tariffs and suppression of Indian industries; associated with Dadabhai Naoroji, R.C. Dutt, Bipan Chandra |
| Drain of Wealth | Dadabhai Naoroji's concept: Britain extracted wealth from India in excess of what it gave back — through salaries, pensions, Home Charges, interest payments, remittances of Company profits — preventing capital accumulation needed for industrialisation |
| Revisionist critique | Argument by some historians (Morris D. Morris, Tirthankar Roy) that Indian industries were already declining before British intervention; that mechanisation and free trade benefited Indian consumers; that some Indian industries grew under colonialism |
| Swadeshi enterprises | Indian-owned manufacturing enterprises promoted during the Swadeshi Movement (1905–11) — Bengal Chemical (P.C. Ray), Bengal Pottery, Bengal National Bank, Bombay/Swadeshi Mills, etc. |
[Additional] De-industrialisation Debate (GS1 — Modern Indian History / Economic History):
The nationalist case (de-industrialisation thesis):
| Argument | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Tariff discrimination | Indian textiles to Britain: 70–80% duty; British textiles to India: 2–3.5%; made Indian handlooms uncompetitive |
| Decline of artisan communities | Census data shows rise in agricultural labourers (peasants absorbing displaced artisans) over 19th century |
| Dhaka muslin case | Population of Dhaka declined from ~150,000 to <30,000 by 1840; industry wiped out in one generation |
| Bihar opium compulsion | Farmers forced to grow indigo/opium for export; diverted from food/artisan crops |
| Free Trade imposed, not chosen | India had no say in trade policy; if an independent country, India might have protected its industries (as Japan and Germany did) |
Key proponents:
- Dadabhai Naoroji: Drain of Wealth theory — £12–30 million/year extracted; "poverty is not a natural condition but a policy outcome"
- Romesh Chunder Dutt: "Economic History of India" (1902–04) — systematic documentation
- Bipan Chandra: "Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India" (1966) — showed nationalists understood colonial economic logic
The revisionist case:
| Argument | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Some Indian industries grew | Calcutta jute mills, Bombay cotton mills, coal mines — all grew under colonialism; Indian entrepreneurship (Tatas, Birlas, Walchands) did develop |
| Consumer benefit | Cheap Manchester cloth meant poor Indian consumers could afford more cotton cloth — real improvement in material welfare |
| Pre-existing decline | Some industries (eg. sail-making) were already declining due to global technological shifts (steam ships), not British policy |
| Incomplete data | 19th-century Indian GDP and employment data is fragmentary; de-industrialisation claims rely partly on incomplete evidence |
Key proponents:
- Morris D. Morris: "The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India" (1965) — challenged received wisdom on de-industrialisation
- Tirthankar Roy: "The Economic History of India 1857–1947" — nuanced view; some decline, some growth; not uniformly negative
The standard UPSC Mains position (synthesis): Neither extreme position is fully supported. The evidence suggests:
- Colonial trade policy did structurally disadvantage Indian manufacturing through asymmetric tariffs
- De-industrialisation was real in specific sectors (textiles, especially handloom) and regions (Dhaka, weavers across Bengal)
- Some Indian industries did grow (Bombay mills, Calcutta jute, coal) — but these were new industrial forms, not preservation of artisan production
- The drain of wealth limited capital available for Indian-owned industrialisation
- The severity of de-industrialisation was uneven — hit textiles hardest, left agriculture and some new industries relatively intact
P.C. Ray and Swadeshi industrial enterprise:
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Prafulla Chandra Ray | Chemist and nationalist; founded Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works in 1901 |
| Swadeshi Movement (1905–11) | Boycott of British goods; promoted Indian manufacturing; gave existing Indian mills and new enterprises political sanction |
| Swadeshi enterprises established | Bengal Chemical (Ray), Bangalakshmi Cotton Mills, Bengal Potteries, Bengal National College, Bengal National Bank, various insurance companies |
| TISCO link | Jamsetji Tata conceived TISCO as industrial nationalism — proved Indians could build heavy industry; TISCO supplied steel during WWI, vindicating the project |
The protectionism argument — what Japan shows: Japan faced similar Western economic pressure in the 1860s but chose economic nationalism with tariff protection once it regained sovereignty through the 1911 revision of unequal treaties. Japan industrialised successfully. India under British colonialism had no right to set its own tariffs until very late (partial fiscal autonomy 1919; cotton excise duties lowered only after massive nationalist pressure). This counterfactual is a key GS1 Mains analytical point.
UPSC synthesis: De-industrialisation debate = GS1 Economic History. Key exam facts: Drain of Wealth = Dadabhai Naoroji = "Poverty and Un-British Rule in India" = 1901 = estimated £12–30 million/year extracted; R.C. Dutt = "Economic History of India" = 1902–04; Bipan Chandra = "Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India" = 1966; tariffs = Indian goods to Britain 70-80% vs British goods to India 2-3.5%; revisionist = Morris D. Morris + Tirthankar Roy; P.C. Ray = Bengal Chemical = 1901 = Swadeshi enterprise. Prelims trap: Naoroji's book = "Poverty and Un-British Rule" (NOT "Poverty and British Rule"); R.C. Dutt = "Economic History of India" = 1902-04 (NOT 1901 — Naoroji's is 1901; Dutt's is 1902-04); Morris D. Morris is the revisionist (NOT the nationalist — Bipan Chandra is the nationalist; Morris challenges the de-industrialisation thesis); TISCO was founded by Jamsetji Tata (he conceived it but died 1904 before it opened in 1907 — opened by his sons Dorab and Ratan Tata).
Exam Strategy
Prelims traps:
- TISCO founded: 1907 — not 1905 (Swadeshi year), not 1911. Jamshedpur is in Jharkhand (not Bihar, though it was in Bihar before Jharkhand's formation in 2000).
- Jamsetji Tata conceived TISCO but died in 1904 — he did not see it open. Do not confuse with J.R.D. Tata (20th-century industrialist).
- Dhaka muslin: "Woven Air" — the poetic name is a Prelims favourite. "Running Water" and "Evening Dew" are alternative names.
- Calico comes from Calicut (Kozhikode) — not from Calcutta.
- Chintz is printed/painted cotton from South India — not silk, not from Bengal.
- India's share of world output in 1750 (~25%) comes from Angus Maddison's historical data — he is sometimes named in Prelims.
- The de-industrialization thesis is associated with Bipan Chandra (and earlier Romesh Chunder Dutt) — not with Dadabhai Naoroji (who focused on the drain of wealth thesis, though both overlap).
- Phuti karpas cotton — used for Dhaka muslin; grew near the Meghna river — a detail that appears in source-based questions.
- British tariffs on Indian textiles in Britain were 70–80% — the "asymmetric tariff" is the core mechanism of de-industrialization.
Practice Questions
Prelims:
With reference to Dhaka muslin in the 18th–19th centuries, which of the following statements is/are correct?
- It was made from a variety of cotton called Phuti karpas found near the Meghna river.
- The population of Dhaka city grew significantly as muslin trade expanded under British rule.
- It was exported to European markets before the arrival of the British East India Company.
Select the correct answer using the codes below:
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
- It was made from a variety of cotton called Phuti karpas found near the Meghna river.
Which of the following correctly identifies the location and founding year of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO)?
(a) Bhilai, 1905
(b) Bokaro, 1907
(c) Durgapur, 1911
(d) Jamshedpur, 1907The term "calico" (a type of cotton cloth) derives its name from:
(a) Calcutta, the centre of colonial cotton trade
(b) Calicut (Kozhikode), a port from which it was exported
(c) A Portuguese word for plain-woven cloth
(d) The name of a British textile mill owner
Mains:
"British colonial policy de-industrialized India by systematically destroying its pre-existing manufacturing base." Critically examine this thesis with specific reference to the textile and iron industries. (CSE Mains 2018, GS Paper 1, 15 marks)
The Swadeshi Movement of 1905 was as much an economic programme as a political protest. Discuss the role of industrial enterprise in Indian nationalist thought from 1905 to 1947. (CSE Mains 2021, GS Paper 1, 10 marks)
