Introduction
Morris D. Morris, an American economic historian, presented a controversial argument that challenged the nationalist view of India’s industrial decline during British colonial rule. According to Morris, there was “not much direct evidence of the decline of India’s traditional industries.” This statement sparked extensive debate among historians and economists. In this post, we critically examine Morris’s argument, its supporting evidence, and the critiques it has received from other scholars.
Morris’s Main Argument
In his studies, particularly in the 1960s, Morris contended that the popular belief in a dramatic decline of Indian handicrafts and traditional industries was overstated. He argued that while some sectors, especially textiles, may have suffered, others adapted and continued to thrive. He emphasized that the evidence for widespread industrial collapse was limited and that some artisanal activities persisted well into the colonial period.
He also pointed to census data, employment patterns, and production statistics which, according to him, did not conclusively prove a large-scale destruction of artisanal work. He suggested that nationalist historians often relied on anecdotal or emotional accounts rather than quantitative data.
Support for His Views
Some historians agreed with Morris’s empirical approach and highlighted regional variation. In parts of India, such as eastern Bengal or western India, artisanal industries like pottery, weaving, and metalwork continued. Additionally, traditional producers often adapted to market demands, altering their techniques or targeting new consumers.
Morris also suggested that industrial change was part of a broader global pattern during the 19th century. He posited that mechanization and globalization affected local industries worldwide—not just in colonized countries like India. Thus, decline (if any) was not solely due to colonial exploitation but also due to broader technological shifts.
Critiques of Morris’s Argument
Despite his detailed analysis, many Indian and global historians criticized Morris for underestimating the role of colonial economic policies in harming traditional industries. Scholars like R.C. Dutt, Irfan Habib, and Amiya Kumar Bagchi pointed out that the imposition of British-made machine goods, discriminatory tariffs, and destruction of local markets devastated Indian handloom and crafts sectors.
Export data showed a steep fall in India’s textile exports, while imports of British textiles surged during the 19th century. Additionally, artisans who once enjoyed stable incomes lost their livelihoods and were forced into low-wage labor or agriculture. Oral histories, literary sources, and regional records also painted a grim picture of artisanal decline and economic displacement.
Structural and Policy Factors
Colonial infrastructure projects like railways and roads often served British economic interests, enabling the easier flow of imported goods into interior markets. British policy dismantled traditional guilds and institutions that protected Indian artisans. Moreover, Indian industries had little access to credit, technological advancement, or protection from foreign competition.
These structural disadvantages were not sufficiently acknowledged in Morris’s analysis, which critics argue led to an incomplete understanding of the causes and scale of decline.
Alternative Perspectives
Recent historiography has tried to bridge the gap between nationalist and revisionist perspectives. Scholars now recognize that while not all industries declined, many traditional sectors suffered due to both colonial policies and global economic changes. The extent of decline also varied regionally and across communities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Morris D. Morris raised important questions about the evidence and scale of industrial decline, his argument that there was “not much direct evidence” is viewed as too narrow. A comprehensive analysis must consider both quantitative data and qualitative insights, as well as the historical context of colonial policies. The decline of India’s traditional industries was a complex process involving technological, political, and social factors—many of which were deeply influenced by colonial rule.