Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:30:49.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Companies and the Bengal Textile Industry in the Eighteenth Century: The Pitfalls of Applying Quantitative Techniques1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Sushil Chaudhury
Sushil Chaudhury
Affiliation:
University of Calcutta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bengal textiles enjoyed a unique place and an indisputable supremacy in the world market for centuries before the invasion of the machinmade fabrics in the early nineteenth century following the industrial revolution of the West and Political control of the Indian sub-continent by the English East India Company. It need not be emphasized that the products of the Bengal handloom industry reigned supreme all over the accessible Asian and North African markets in the middle ages, and later became one of the major staples of the export trade of the European Companies. Most travellers from Europe starting with Tomé Pires, Varthema and Barbosa in the sixteenth century to Bernier, Tavernier and others in the seventeenth singled out especially textiles of Bengal for comments on their extraordinary quality and exquisite beauty. But it was not only in the field of high qulity cloth that Bengal had a predominant position; it was also the main Production centre of ordinary and medium quality textiles. Long before the advent of the Europeans, the Asian merchants from different parts of the continent and Indian merchants from various regions of the country derived a lucrative trade in Bengal textiles.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 1993 , pp. 321 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

2 The report of the Dutch factor, Henry Cansius, in 1670 put the value of textile exports by the Asians at Rs 0.8 to 1 million while Richard Edwards of the English, Company esstimated it between 2.25 and 3.75 million rupees in 1676. For Cansius' report, see Verenigade Oost-Indische Compagnie, 1278 (henceforth V.O.C., earlier Koloniaal Archief, 1168, henceforth K.A.) 7 September 1670, ff. 2173–74, Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague.Google Scholar The first reference to this report I saw in Prakash, Om, The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal, (Princeton, 1985), pp. 99–100, where it is mentioned under K.A. 1168. The series has since been changed to V.O.C.Google ScholarFor Edwards' report, see Factory Records, Miscellaneous, vol. 14, ff. 334–36, India Office Records, London (henceforth IOR).Google Scholar

3 Datta, K. K., Studies in the History of Bengal Suba (Calcutta, 1936), pp. 463–6;Google ScholarBhattacharya, , The East India Company and the Economy of Bengal (London, 1954), p. 17;Google ScholarChaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 239, 247, 261, 272–5;Google ScholarMarshall, P. J., ‘Bengal—the British Bridgehead’, in New Cambridge History of India (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 65–7.Google Scholar

4 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, pp. 242–4.Google Scholar

5 Fogel, William and Elton, G. R., Which Road to the Past? Two Views of History (New Haven and London, 1983).Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 124.

7 Towney, Michael J., ‘Employment in the Nineteenth Century Indian Textiles’, Explorations in Economic History 20 (1983), pp. 37–57, esp. pp. 48–9.Google Scholar

8 Marshall, , ‘Bengal’, p. 66;Google ScholarSteensgaard, Niels, ‘Asian Trade and World Economy from the 15th to the 18th centuries’ in de Souza, T. R. (ed.), Indo-Portuguese History: Old Issues, New Quesdtions (New Delhi, 1985), p. 232;Google ScholarRichards, J. F., ‘The Seventeenth Century Crisis in South Asia’, Modern Asian Studies 24, 4 (1990), pp. 634–5. Richards, however, referred to the general conclusion without quoting the figure.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Prakash, Om, ‘Bullion for Goods: International Trade ans the Economy of Early Eighteenth Century Bengal’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, (henceforth IESHR) XIII, 2 (04.–06 1976), pp. 159–87;CrossRefGoogle ScholarThe Dutch East India Company, pp. 242–8, 256.Google Scholar The exact estimate is 87 to 111 thousand.

10 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, pp. 242, 246;Google Scholar‘Bullion for of Goods’, p. 172.Google Scholar

11 Marshall, , ‘Bengal’, p. 6;Google ScholarSteensgaard, , ‘Asian Trade and World Economy’, p. 232.Google Scholar

12 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, p. 243, Table 8.1; pp. 61–5.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., pp. 65, 244; ‘Bullion for Goods’, p. 182.

14 Yule, H. and Burnell, A. C., Hobson-Jobson, a glossary of Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, etc. (new edn., Crooke, W., London 1903; facsimile reprint, 1968), p. 268.Google Scholar

15 Stapel, F. W. (ed.), van Dam's, PieterBeschryvinge van de Oost-Indische Compagnie (The Hague, 1932), vol. II, pt II, p. 451.Google Scholar

16 As, for example, in the order sent out on 14 Nov. 1701, the Heeren XVII asked for 4000 pcs. of malmal ‘van 36 cobidos lang en 2 co. breet’, and 1300 milmil ‘van ell breet’, V.O.C., 113 (K. A. 262). For the order sent out in 1733, they asked for 15,000 pcs. of Cossas ‘van 3 cobido—11/2 cobido’ while asked for 800 sanoes of ‘16 ellen lang’ (V.O.C. 120, KA. 269). Again in 1740, they asked for 60,000 pcs. of garras of ‘30 a 31 cobido lang’ while the order sent out in 1733 was for 60,000 pcs. of garras ‘van 21 ellen lang’ (V.O.C. 122, KA. 271).Google Scholar

17 V.O.C. 110 (KA. 259) order sent out in Nove. 1688.Google Scholar

18 V.O.C. 7381 ‘Eijsch’ for ships returning in 1757.Google Scholar

19 De Koophandel van Amsterdam, by De L'Espine, Le Moine, ed. by Le Long, Issac, Deel, Tweede, Druk, Negende (9th edn., Rotterdam, 1780), p. 91.Google Scholar While discussing the problem of cobido with Dr B. J. Slot, Keeper of the 1st. Section, Algemeen Rijksarchief, he thought there might be a book like this, and we found out this edition and the subsequent information in the book. I am thankful to Dr Slot for his help and cooperation.

20 Collectie Hope, No. 73 (13), Algemeen Rijksarchief. I owe this information to Huub Meens of Maastricht, Netherlands, for which I am grateful to him.Google Scholar

21 Stavorinus, J. S., Voyages to the East Indies, 1768–71, trans. Wilcocke, S. H., vol. I (London,1798), p. 463.Google Scholar

22 Home Misc. 456F, ff. 135–6, 173, 175, IOR.Google Scholar

23 Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal, 1669–79, ed. Temple, R. C. (Cambridge, 1905), p. 218.Google Scholar

24 Moreland, W. H., From Akbar to Aurangzeb (London, 1923), pp. 318, 338.Google Scholar

25 Prakash, , ‘Bullion for Goods’, p. 182. But I could not find the reference in his book.Google Scholar

26 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, p. 243, Table 8.1.Google Scholar

27 Chaudhuri, S., Trade and Commercial Organization in Bengal, 1650–1720 (Calcutta, 1975), pp. 194–5, fn. 141.Google Scholar

28 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, p. 243, sources for Table 8.1.Google Scholar

29 V.O.C. 2862 (KA. 2754). HB, 14 March. 1755, ff. 898–99.Google Scholar

30 Auction Notice, Dt. 16 Sept. 1755, Resolutions of Heeren XVII, V.O.C. 7380.Google Scholar

31 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, pp. 61–5, with footnotes, especially 18, 23, 29, 30.Google Scholar

32 The doubtful varieties are: achiabani (coarse calico according to K. N. Chaudhuri, p. 503), asisbegi (like rajibegi?), ektani (like dotani?), kabulkhani (like kamkhani?), mobessabani (like mohanbani?), and gerberry (produced in Malda, according to Taillefert).Google Scholar

33 Hoge Regering van Batavia (henceforth HR), 246, 7 Nov. 1763, Algemeen Rijksarchief. Taillefert actually wrote two ‘memories’, the first one dt. 27 Oct. 1755, V.O.C. 2829 (KA. 2741).Google Scholar

34 Prakash might raise the question that kamkhani was identified as fine muslin by Irwin also. The latter states that it was produced near Patna which is confirmed by our sources (V.O.C. 2594, HB, 4 Jan. 1744, ff. 286 vo., 288).Google Scholar But Bihar was certainly not an area producing fine muslin. Secondly, if price is any indication which both our author and Irwin claim it is, kamkhani is at best a medium or coarse calico because the price of kamkhani in the export invoices works out to be around f. 4.5 (V.O.C. 2617, HB, 24 January 1745, ff. 157 vo.–58, Invoice of Hofwegen) while the price of muslin during the period would have been at least f. 15 to 20 (V.O.C. 2629, HB, 4 Jan. 1744, ff. 199–218. Contracts with Merchants).Google Scholar

35 Prakash can argue again that he mentioned silk lungi, silk taffachela, silk sjoukoria, etc., as a separate category from lungi, taffachela, etc. But the problem is that nowhere in the records of the early 18th century do we find these distinctions, and Taillefert never mentions such different categories of the same brand of piece-goods. Nor do we find such distinction in Irwin, K. N. Chaudhuri or Hameeda Hossain.Google Scholar

36 The unit price of these piece-goods computed from the total cost price anf the number of pieces exported by the ships Bevalligheid (V.O.C. 2794, HB, 20 Dec. 1752, ff. 7 vo. —8; 2829, HA, 10 Nov. 1754, ff. 134 vo.–35 vo.)Google Scholar and Ruijskenstein (V.O.C. 2829, HZ, 19 Jan. 1755, ff. 185–85 vo.).Google Scholar There is also great doubt whether sanu could be considered fine calico as is done by Prakash. Even Irwin contends that sanu was a ‘plain cotton cloth of ordinary quality’, and baftas and chintz as ‘white’ or ‘calico’ (Irwin, John and Schwartz, P. R., Studies in Indo-European Textile History (Ahmedabad, 1966), pp. 59, 62, 70)Google ScholarChaudhuri, while K. N., The Trading World of Asia, pp. 503–5, classifies baftas as ‘plain white …medium to superior’, chintz ‘printed …medium to superior’ and sanu as ‘plain white’. Still now salu (a corrupt form of sanu?) is considered a cheap coarse cloth in Bengal.Google Scholar It is strange that Prakash places nainsook which means ‘pleasure of eye’ under fine calicoes. It was actually one of the finest and most expensive muslins (Taylor– ‘a thick muslin’), the price being f. 73 per piece in 1754–55 (V.O.C. 2811, HA, 5 Jan. 1754, ff. 46–46 vo.)Google Scholar, V.O.C. 2829, HA, 19 Jan. 1755, ff. 185–85 vo.).Google Scholar Similarly dorea and humhum were not, in all probability, fine calicoes but muslins. According to K. N. Chaudhuri, humhum was muslin while Irwin thinks that it was ‘plain cotton cloth of varying quality’. Both of them however hold that dorea was mixed piece-goods, which is rather doubtful. If these two types were muslins, that will certainly strengthen Prakash's position.

37 Collected and computed from Bengal General Journals and Ledgers, vol. 54, IOR.Google Scholar

38 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, p. 243, Table 8.1.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 244, note for Tables 8.1.

40 V.O.C. 2821, HB, 20 Feb. 1753, ff. 91–95, Contract with Merchants, 24 June 1752.Google Scholar

41 Prakash, , The Dutch East India Company, p. 244, note for Table 8.1.Google Scholar

42 Chaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World Asia, p. 504.Google Scholar

43 Chaudhuri, S., Trade and Commercial Organization, p. 267, Appendix E.Google Scholar

44 Despatch Book (henceforth D.B.), vol. 107, 13 Dec. 1738, ff. 536–47; DB. 108, 3 Feb. 1740, ff. 364–76, IOR.Google Scholar

45 V.O.C. 2821, HB, 20 Feb. 1753, ff. 91–5, Contract dt. 24 June 1752.Google Scholar

46 For exampeile, the price of guineas, a well-known coarse calico, was f. 13–14 (because of its size? 75 co. x 2¼ co.) in the period 1752/53 to 1754/55 while the price of ordinary malmal, (a muslin) of Hughli was f. 11–13, ordinary khasa, (again a muslin) of Hughli from f. 13–15 and bethila (a fine calico) from f. 11–12 in the same period. Collected and computed from Dutch export invoices, V.O.C. 2794, 2811, 2829.Google Scholar

47 Prakash classifies the various piece-goods even in the same category in ‘descending order’ on the basis of ‘fineness, workmanship and cost’. Om Prakash, The Dutch East India Company, pp. 61, 62, 64.Google Scholar This is an extremely doubtful hypothesis. See for example, the prices of tanzebs, terendams, khasas, malmals (in ‘descending order’ of Prakash) for 1753/1754 and 1754/55. Tanjeb Dhaka -f. 42–63 Tanjeb Daudpur (Hughli) -f. 10–11 Terendam Santipur (Hughli) -f. 19 Khasa (Hughli) -f. 13–15 Malmal Santipur (Hughli) -f. 38 It is clear from this that Tanjeb Dhaka is the most expensive and hence finest quality but not Tanjeb Daudpur which is less expensive than Terendam Santipur while Malmal Santipur should precede in order of fineness both Tanjeb Daudpur and Terendam Santipur as also Khasa Hughli.

48 See for example, Trade, Bullion and Conquest: Bengal in the Eighteenth Century, Presidential Address, Medieval India Section, Golden Jubilee Session, Indian History Congress, Gorakhpur, December 1990. I have discussed the whole issue in greater detail in my paper ‘The Asian Merchants and Companies in Bengal's Export Trade, circa mid-Eighteenth Century’, presented at the International Conference on ‘Merchants, Companies and Trade’ held at Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris, 31 05–1 June 1990.Google Scholar

49 Dutch Director Louis Taillefert's ‘memorie’, V.O.C. 2849 (KA. 2741), 27 Oct. 1755, ff. 188 vo.–189.Google Scholar

50 Bengal Public Consultations (henceforth B.P.C.), Range 1, vol. 44, Annex to Consult. 19 June 1769, IOR; Eur.Mss. D.283, f. 21;Google Scholar H. Verelst's letter to the Court of Directors, 5 April. 1769, Fort William—India House Correspondence (henceforth FWIHC), Vol. V., ed. Sinha, N. K. (New Delhi, 1960), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

51 The Dutch export is computed from export invoices in Dutch records and the English export is taken from Chaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World of Asia, p. 534.Google Scholar The value of both the Dutch and English export was calculated at the rate of Rs 7 per seer, the rate at which the Asian export was estimated in the sources. That the average price of tanna silk was about this is corroborated by other sources also, e.g. Factory Records, Kasimbazar, vol. 12, Consult. 6 Jan. 1756, IOR; B.P.C., Range 1, vol. 26, f. 114Google Scholar, Consult. 18 April. 1753, vol. 25, f. 86 vo., Consult. 16 March. 1752.Google Scholar

52 All the English and Dutch silk converted into small English 1b.Google Scholar

53 Taillefert's ‘memorie’, V.O.C. 2849, 27 Oct. 1755, f. 245 vo. Scrafton, Luke, Reflections on the Government of Indostan (London, 1760), p. 20;Google Scholar B.P.C., Range I, vol. II, ff. 288 vo.–289, 28 Aug. 1736;Google ScholarFWIHC, vol. V, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

54 The Asian merchants imported into Bengal a few commodities like cotton etc. but their total value compared to the value of exports from Bengal was quite negligible.Google Scholar

55 The Dutch trade to Europe valued at around Rs 1.5 million (computed from export invoices in Dutch records) and the English trade around Rs. 2.5 to Rs 3 million (Chaudhuri, K. N., The Trading World of Asia, p. 545) in the mid-18th century.Google Scholar

56 Taylor's Report, Home Misc. 456F, f. 93.Google Scholar

57 See, for instance, the Geographical Analysis of Orders for Piece-goods from London in early 1680s, S. Chaudhuri, Trade and Commercial Organisation p. 201, fn. 166.Google Scholar

58 Colebrooke, H. T., Remarks on the Husbandry and Internal Commerce of Bengal (Calcutta, 1804), p. 170.Google Scholar