Wk. 8 Primary Source Petitions from the Weavers of Dacca and Santipore (1775, 1786)

Question 1

Petitions from the Weavers of Dacca and Santipore (1775, 1786)

Answer 1

Petitions from the Weavers of Dacca and Santipore (1775, 1786) – Bengal, in north-east India, had been home to the most advanced cotton textile manufacturers in the world for centuries. Since the 1600s the English East India Company, along with the Dutch and French, had bought Bengali cotton and sold them in Europe at great profit. But starting in 1757 the Company gained increasing political influence in Bengal that it hoped to use to gain commercial advantages.

According to these petitions from Bengali cotton weavers, how had the Company’s practices changed?

• The Company’s practices changed when they…
  
  • In the petition of 1775…
    
    • …got rid of the middlemen to remove that cost and deal directly with the weavers. “having dismissed the Dellols and Pycars”
    • …then began forcing requirements on the weavers. “Mr. Day and Bikkrum Takoor forcibly took from us and for every Rupee worth wanted to give us 8, 9, or 10 annas”
      
      • Instituted company oversight (peons), forced pricing, forbidden to deal with other merchants, under great threat. “peons were placed over us and we were forced to take advances and give receipts for them and obligations were demanded from us that we would furnish no other merchants with goods. To this, we made great objections but were forced to comply. We complained of this, but were driven out of this Factory.”
  • In the petition of 1786…
    
    • …started using contracts that demanded the weavers supply cloth at predetermined prices and quality, without regard for the rising cost of raw materials. “but since the business of the aurung [manufaturing] has been carried on by contract, we have suffered great hardships.”
      
      • “From such dealings, we are great sufferers and thread being extremely dear we are under the necessity of selling our households utensils for our subsistence”
    • …paid for cloths on a scale that was unfair to the weavers.“we have not been able to supply ourselves with food or cloths because superfine cloths (that they produce) are priced as only fine (receive payment from the EIC as though they are of a lower quality), fine as middling, and middling cloths are ferretted11 and then retained as the Dutch (or ordinary) sort at an underprice.”
    • …kept the “rejected” cloths (which are actually of ‘ordinary’ quality) at some undisclosed lower price. The weavers wanted the “rejected” cloths returned to them so that they could possibly resell at a better price (more on par with their true level of quality) or perhaps reuse the thread in them that was so expensive to procure. “cloths are ferretted [rejected] and then retained as the Dutch (or ordinary) sort at an underprice.”
      
      • “for Nainsooks and when we deliver them, they are also ferretted, termed Dutch, and retained at an underprice.”
      • “The cloths that must be ferretted upon the musters, we desire may be returned to us.”

What do you think the Company was trying to accomplish?

They were trying to do 3 things:

1. Take over control of the production in the region
2. Lock in all the supply.
3. Exploit the labor by forcing work with significant underpay and unreasonable demands.

How do you think the weavers would have responded if these practices continued and what effect would that have on the Company?

• The weavers would have had no other option but to abandon their work since it was actually costing them to produce the cloths.
• The company, in turn, would have suffered because they would have lost a significant supply of the cloths they need to resell in the European markets.