Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T14:00:30.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonial Rule and the Internal Economy in Twentieth-century Madras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Christopher Baker
Christopher Baker
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the colonial period, the government played a substantial role in structuring India's foreign trade and in moulding the economy of the great port cities and their immediate hinterlands. Once Company and government had started to prise themselves apart in the early nineteenth century, however, the colonial rulers adopted a very haughty attitude towards the working of the internal economy. The development of internal production and trade would of course be deeply affected by the imperial connection, but the colonial government refused to admit responsibility and was careful not to be drawn into active intervention. The transition from colonial rule to independence did not mark a sharp break between this era of laissez faire or minimal interference in the internal economy, and an era of 'development' or constructive intervention. Indeed, it is more likely that a reluctant slide into economic management during the latter part of the colonial period helped to speed the colonial rulers along their course of retreat; any attempt to tamper with the mechanisms of the internal economy opened up the colonial government to contradictory pressures and threatened to expose many of the weaker links in the mesh of colonial command.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 575 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

1 The development of these ideas can be seen in books and periodicals, particularly the Indian Journal of Economics.Google Scholar

2 Prasad, P. S. Narayana, ‘World depression in India’, Indian Journal of Economics, XVI (1935–1936).Google Scholar

3 ee, for instance, Raj, R. K., Industrialization in India: Growth and Conflict in the Private Corporate Sector 1914–47 (Delhi, 1979);Google ScholarGordon, A. D. D., Businessmen and Politics: Rising Nationalism and a Modernising Economy in Bombay, 1919–1933 (New Delhi, 1978).Google Scholar

4 Report of the Economic Depression Enquiry Committee (Madras, 1931), copy in Proceedings of the Board of Revenue [BP] 1662 dated 28 May 1931 (all references to government files indicate files of the Government of Madras held in the Tamilnadu Archives).Google Scholar

5 A. Srinivasa Iyengar forwarding resolutions of the Mannargudi Landholders' Association on 26 November 1933 in Revenue G.O. [Rev] 314 dated 13 February 1934.Google Scholar

6 Tirunelveli District Landholders' Association, 4 July 1938, in Rev 2217 dated 31 August 1938.Google Scholar

7 Ayyar, R. Sivarama in Madras Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee (Madras, 1930) written evidence vol. II, p. 335.Google Scholar

8 Complaints were voiced before all the main commissions; see the volumes of evidence of the Indian Industrial Commission 1916–18, the Royal Commission on Agriculture 1926–28, and the Banking Enquiry Committee 1930.Google Scholar

9 See David Washbrook's article in this volume.Google Scholar

10 Foulkes, G. F. F., Local Autonomy (Madras, 1937–1938);Google ScholarReport of the Madras Survey and Land Records Committee (Madras, 1947);Google ScholarPillai, J. Shivashanmugham, Legislative Protection for the Cultivating Tenant and Labourer (Madras, 1947).Google Scholar

11 Natarajan, M. S., The Capital Market of the Madras Presidency with Special Reference to its Evolution and Indigenous Institutions (Calcutta, 1936);Google ScholarKrishnan, V., Indigenous Banking in South India (Bombay, 1959).Google Scholar

12 Chettiar, O. R. M. M. S. M. Sevaga in Madras Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, vol. IV, p. 243;Google Scholar M. Ramanathan Chettiar in ibid., pp. 160–3.

13 Public Works and Labour Department G.O. PWL 854-L dated 7 April 1934; Development Department G.O.Dvt 2059 dated 23 August 1938; Dvt 869 dated 19 July 1933; Dvt 989 dated 11 April 1938.Google Scholar

14 Madras Labour July 1937–October 1938 (Madras, 1938).Google Scholar

15 Dvt 2059 dated 23 August 1938; Dvt 2532 dated 12 October 1938; Dvt 2792 dated 8 November 1938; Dvt 208 dated 24 January 1939; see also Arnold, D., ‘Labour Relations in a South Indian Sugar Factory 1937–1939’, Social Scientist, VI, 5 (1977).Google Scholar

16 See Baker, C. J., The Tamilnad Countryside: An Indian Rural Economy 1880–1955 (Oxford, forthcoming). ch. 3.Google Scholar

17 Rev 2014 dated 7 November 1945; Dvt 4685 dated 23 December 1946.Google Scholar

18 See the evidence volumes of the Report of the Madras Estates Land Act Committee (Madras, 1938), especially Part II, Tenants Memoranda, and Irrigation Reports from Zamindars.Google Scholar

19 Rev 2870 dated 27 November 1947; Rev 2299 dated 30 September 1947; Rev 2014 dated 7 November 1945.Google Scholar

20 Krishnaswami, S. Y., Rural Problems in Madras: Monograph (Madras, 1947);Google ScholarNatarajan, B., Food and Agriculture in Madras State (Madras, 1953); Dvt 253–6 dated 9 June 1947; BP 1373 dated 2 August 1944.Google Scholar

21 Dupuis, J., Madras et le Nord du Coromandel; étude des conditions de la vie Indienne dans un cadre géographique (Paris, 1960), p. 519.Google Scholar

22 This fact is brought out strongly in Sivagnanam, Ma. Po., Enathu Porattam [Tamil—My Life's Struggle] (Madras, 1974), esp. pp. 31–4.Google Scholar

23 Baliga, B. S., Compendium on History of Handloom Industry in Madras (Madras, 1960);Google ScholarVenkataraman, K. S., The Handloom Industry in South India (Madras, 1940).Google Scholar

24 Arnold, D., ‘Looting, Grain Riots and Government Policy in South India 1918’, Past and Present, 84 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 See, for example, BP 484 dated 18 February 1942; Rev 1320 dated 16 June 1942.Google Scholar

26 Krishnaswami, Rural Problems, 126–35.Google Scholar

27 Wheeler, J. T., Handbook to the Cotton Cultivation in the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1862), p. 33.Google Scholar

28 Chatterton, A., ‘The Weaving Competitions in Madras’, Indian Textile Journal, IX.Google Scholar

29 Nicholson, F. A., Report Regarding the Possibilities of Introducing Land and Agricultural Banks into the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1895–1897).Google Scholar

30 Nicholson advocated co-operatives, but several other things as well.Google Scholar

31 See the Annual Report on the Working of the Madras Co-operative Credit Societies Act; Naidu, B. V. Narayanaswamy, The Co-operative Movement in the Madras Presidency (Annamalainagar, 1933).Google Scholar

32 See, for example, Rev 41 (Confidential) dated 6 January 1934.Google Scholar

33 Dvt 2046 dated 8 November 1930; Dvt 1299 dated 28 June 1930.Google Scholar

34 Rev 41 (confidential) dated 6 January 1934.Google Scholar

35 Rev 765 dated 1 April 1931; BP 3315 dated 10 November 1930; BP 2880 dated 4 October 1930; BP 1662 dated 28 May 1931.Google Scholar

36 Rev 1752–3 dated 14 August 1931; Rev 227–8 dated 30 January 1932; Rev 1687–8 dated 9 August 1932; Rev 1293 dated 24 July 1933; Rev 2532–3 dated 22 December 1932; Rev 9 dated 3 January 1933.Google Scholar

37 Report of the Economic Depression Enquiry Committee.Google Scholar

38 Srinivasan, C. R., Report of the Rice Production and Trade in the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1934), copy in Dvt 322 dated 2 March 1935.Google Scholar

39 Sathyanathan, W. R. S., Report on Agricultural Indebtedness (Madras, 1935).Google Scholar

40 Baliga, Compendium.Google Scholar

41 Naidu, B. V. Narayanaswamy and Vaidynathan, P., The Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act—A Study (Annamalainagar, 1939).Google Scholar

42 Prest, A. R., War Economies of Primary Producing Countries (Cambridge, 1948);Google ScholarTomlinson, B. R., The Political Economy of the Raj: The Economics of Decolonization in India (London, 1979), ch. 3.Google Scholar

43 Sen, A. K., ‘Starvation and Exchange Entitlements: A General Approach and its Application to the Great Bengal Famine’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, I (1977).Google Scholar

44 Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Madras, Measures of Food Control, Procurement and Controlled Distribution of Food and their Effects on the Agrarian Economy (Madras, n.d.);Google ScholarKnight, H., Food Administration in India 1939–47 (Stanford, 1954);Google ScholarA Survey of Procurement and Rationing of Food in the Madras State, compiled by Jones, I. R. (Pudukottai, 1951).Google Scholar

45 Linlithgow to Amery dated 26 December 1942 in Mansergh, N. (ed.), The Transfer of Power 1942–7: Volume III (London, 1971), p. 224.Google Scholar

46 Row, B. Govinda, ‘Some Aspects of Economic Controls in India during the War’, Indian Journal of Economics, XXIV (1943–1944); Measures of Food Control; Dvt 4524 dated 16 November 1945; Dvt 2589 dated 3 July 1946; Dvt 631 dated 14 February 1945; Natarajan, Food and Agriculture, pp. 19, 39, 41; Dvt 2461 dated 25 June 1945.Google Scholar

47 Gorwala, A. D., The Role of the Administrator, Past, Present and Future (Poona, 1952).Google Scholar

48 Bhogendranath, N. C., Development of the Textile Industry in Madras (up to 1950) (Madras, 1957), pp. 75–86; Baliga, Compendium, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar

49 BP 937 dated 11 April 1942; Rev 1809 dated 17 August 1942.Google Scholar

50 Baliga, Compendium, pp. 65–81, 85, 102.Google Scholar

51 BP 386-M dated 9 September 1942; BP 97-M dated 22 June 1942; BP 289-M dated 15 August 1942; BP 237-M dated 4 August 1942; BP 117-M dated 26 June 1942.Google Scholar

52 Rev 238 dated 6 February 1945; Dvt 409 dated 1 February 1947; Dvt 229 dated 21 January 1947; BP 1030 dated 11 July 1945; Krishnaswami, Rural Problems, pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

53 Krishnaswami, Rural Problems; Natarajan, Food and Agriculture; Zacharias, C. W. B., Madras Agriculture (Madras, 1950); BP 1030 dated 11 July 1945.Google Scholar

54 Baliga, Compendium, pp. 81–5.Google Scholar

55 ibid., pp. 81–5, 102.

56 Famine Enquiry Commission Final Report (Madras, 1945), p. 45.Google Scholar

57 Rev 238 dated 6 February 1945; Burns, W., Technological Possibilities of Agricultural Development in India (Lahore, 1944).Google Scholar

58 ibid.; BP 1030 dated 11 July 1945.

59 Note from B. W. Batchelor in Dvt 840 dated 2 March 1945.Google Scholar

60 Dewey, C. J., ‘The Government of India's New Industrial Policy, 1900–1925: Formation and Failure’, in Dewey, C. J. and Chaudhuri, K. N. (eds), Economy and Society: Studies in Indian Economic and Social History (New Delhi, 1978).Google Scholar

61 Board of Revenue note dated 5 April 1940 in Rev 1355 (Confidential) dated 20 June 1942.Google Scholar

62 See the exchange between Hood, H. M. and Chettiar, M. Ramanathan in Madras Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, vol. IV, pp. 160–5.Google Scholar

63 D. H. Amalsad, ‘Note on Protection of Hand Spinning and Handloom Weaving Industries’ dated 27 August 1938 in Dvt 2106 dated 4 September 1940.Google Scholar

64 Baliga, Compendium.Google Scholar

65 Sonachalam, K. S., Land Reforms in Tamilnadu: Evaluation of Implementation (Delhi, 1970).Google Scholar

66 Béteille, A., Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965);Google ScholarGough, E. K., ‘Caste in a Tanjore village’, in Leach, E. R. (ed.), Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and Northeast Pakistan (Cambridge, 1960);Google ScholarMencher, J. P., Agriculture and Social Structure in Tamilnadu: Past Origins, Present Transformations, Future Prospects (Durham, 1978).Google Scholar

67 Alavi, H., ‘The State in Postcolonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh’, in Gough, K. and Sharma, H. P. (eds), Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia (New York and London, 1973). It should be noted that Alavi limits his study to Pakistan and Bangaladesh and mentions that the greater political undertow in India makes it a very different case.Google Scholar