The Mutual Industrial Revolution of Britain and India

We all know the story of Britain's industrialization. Coal and iron to steel, steam engines to drain mines, propel ships and trains; mills and factories with water or steam power for fabric and other manufactures, etc. In India, things weren't quite so broad. Indian textiles did do very well before British manufacturing dominated that sector, and later developments saw greater, if uneven, industrial investment across the country, but economic and industrial growth was virtually nil. India went from 20-25% of the world's economy in the 18th century to a mere 3% by the 20th.

18th century India was however, rather wealthy and productive. Its economy and population were enormous, and Indian export trade dominated European markets. For these obvious reasons, India was pretty valuable to the British and French as they squabbled over Indian trade, but I'm not proposing a divided or French India.

So, given India's economic clout and advantages, what if it experienced an Industrial Revolution more or less in tandem with the British one?

As the British East India Company expands its control over India in the 18th century, suppose it continues to invest in textile production. A practical profit-minded fellow in the EIC applies some of the early industrial lessons to the factories the company has invested in, over time boosting productivity from older methods. Joined with British capital and machinery exports to India, textiles and mining spur a widening and deepening industrial base. India has of course a very large internal market, and access to Asian and European ones through expanding British 19th century shipping. The EIC, former EIC administrators and others being now heavily invested in India's industries, there are enough interest group pressures to keep attempts at British internal protectionism from restricting development. Given that Britain and India are developing their industry together, such sectors would probably be rather organically complimentary, developing in somewhat separate directions. Ideally, early demand and development spurs a greater class of crafts-workers and others of technical skill in the country as the 19th century progresses, supporting ever-broadening growth and hopefully Indian innovation in industries.

Indian agricultural production would of course remain very important, if less so as industry grows. In early years, the very proximity of Indian production centers to bulk commodities could be an important factor in their advantage. Shipping cotton is rather more expensive that shipping finished cloth, after all.

I can't really speculate what social effects this would engender in India at this point; as it is it's only a germ of an idea. No doubt I'm missing roadblocks obvious to those who know Indian history in this era better than I, so how else might this tandem-industry begin?

Can we really have an Industrial British India?
 
This isn't going to work since there is no 'Indian' nation as you keep mentioning. There are hundreds of individual nations and states, the East India Company never really controlled the subcontinent to the extent you are talking about.
 
This isn't going to work since there is no 'Indian' nation as you keep mentioning. There are hundreds of individual nations and states, the East India Company never really controlled the subcontinent to the extent you are talking about.

I was referring to India as a geographic expression, not as a single nation-state. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. I'm fully aware India was not exactly a unitary state even under the Raj, let alone under the EIC.

What do you mean by "not going to work"? That textiles in Bengal could not draw the capital or promote the development of complimentary industrial sectors? Or that the EIC would not invest in material processing and manufacturing in the ports or cities it controls?
 
part of the problem is that british manufacturers didnt want/couldnt have indian competition.

That is indeed a problem. In the OP, I speculated that early enough development--with British investors--could create a group opposed to restriction of Indian industry as the 19th century progressed, but I'm not sure how possible that is. If British and hypothetical Indian industries are more complementary than competitive, the problem might be mitigated as well.
 
Last edited:
Does India have the coal supply to power an early industrial revolution?

It would seem so.

India has a long history of commercial coal mining covering nearly 220 years starting from 1774 by M/s Sumner and Heatly of East India Company in the Raniganj Coalfield along the Western bank of river Damodar.
Local demand for it didn't pick up until the mid-late 19th century, it seems. Today's India is a major coal producer, but I couldn't tell you how much coal would be accessible with 19th century technology. Regardless, I don't think coal would be the primary limiting factor toward Indian industrial development.
 
Sounds like the setup for a less ASB Peshawar Lancers! :D

Seriously, interesting. There's certainly manpower enough and then some for any actual factories (AFAIK)...the big question is why industrialize when sweatshop labor is cheap and readily available?

England had the necessary pop. boom thanks to the agricultural revolution...might not need that since pop. is (AFAIK) high enough.

The next big Q is why and how steam experiments start in *India. England had mine pumping needs to drive the invention. Also, England had an existing watermill industry to spur the mechanics of the factories...does *India? Will it? Would anyone dare put a mill wheel in the Ganges?

I'm sure there's potential answers for these, but they'll need to be addressed.

Still, I'd love to see this done. Hmmm...idea forming...gets backs to youse.
 
The opposition could be pretty nasty I'd imagine. Luddites^10....Early mutiny?


maybe some bright lad could invent outsourcing a little earlier?
Nah, Britain was a 3rd world country then too (as was everyone). Labour was cheap in the UK too.



One thought which could be interesting- Indian canals.
Would these still count as the Holy Ganges if connected to it I wonder?
 
I'm still curious about making canals/sluices or placing water wheels in the holy Ganges...how was that addressed OTL...or was it?
 
One thing that's important is that India was fairly strong economically - there's more infrastructure to replace than in Britain, both literally and culturally & politically. Where, for example, does factory work fit into the caste system?
 
Sounds like the setup for a less ASB Peshawar Lancers! :D

Seriously, interesting. There's certainly manpower enough and then some for any actual factories (AFAIK)...the big question is why industrialize when sweatshop labor is cheap and readily available?

...

The next big Q is why and how steam experiments start in *India. England had mine pumping needs to drive the invention. Also, England had an existing watermill industry to spur the mechanics of the factories...does *India? Will it? Would anyone dare put a mill wheel in the Ganges?

There was a fair amount of mining in India at the time, IIRC, so something similar might drive steam use. For all that it matters, the initial introduction of the concept might be done by the British themselves, if perhaps unofficially.

As for industrializing with all the available labor; it'd have to be a simple question of profit. There's a hard limit to what you can pay an individual and have them keep working, even if they're slaves(which isn't the case here). If you're using competitive paid labor, wage levels could still make increasing use of machines productive enough to be valuable.

Interesting. I could easily see friendly Marahrajas using industry to gain political one-upmanship over their neighbours.

That might be the best way. Perhaps during the French and British conflicts on the subcontinent, local production is kick-started. The European traders want better deals than the other, and thus local capital investment begins to drive a virtuous cycle. By the time the British kick out the French, and establish their formal and informal control over India, basic manufacturing (and British investment in it) is far too well entrenched to attempt to curtail or restrict.

I'm still curious about making canals/sluices or placing water wheels in the holy Ganges...how was that addressed OTL...or was it?
One thing that's important is that India was fairly strong economically - there's more infrastructure to replace than in Britain, both literally and culturally & politically. Where, for example, does factory work fit into the caste system?

I can't answer that, or even speculate effectively. Anyone out there with Indian cultural expertise?
 
It would seem so.

Local demand for it didn't pick up until the mid-late 19th century, it seems. Today's India is a major coal producer, but I couldn't tell you how much coal would be accessible with 19th century technology. Regardless, I don't think coal would be the primary limiting factor toward Indian industrial development.

Not much of it - nearly all Indian coal, unlike the easily accessible British and Belgium deposits is up in the mountainous central regions like Jharkhand, that were well away from natural transport networks and highly undeveloped (little urbanization or mobile workers). Plus that links amusing - 6 million tons in 1900 is a large output? Thats when Britain was producing 230 million tons!

Simply put, although India had vast resources and huge amounts of skilled labour, there was no way to bring the two together till good railways were built, which means another industrial revolution (British or not) needed to have happened somewhere else first to provide the basic techniques.
 
Simply put, although India had vast resources and huge amounts of skilled labour, there was no way to bring the two together till good railways were built, which means another industrial revolution (British or not) needed to have happened somewhere else first to provide the basic techniques.

Of course, industrial revolutions don't require steam. Why does everyone forget the role textiles played in Britain?
 
Of course, industrial revolutions don't require steam. Why does everyone forget the role textiles played in Britain?

Textile mills powered by year round fast flowing streams - again something unfortunately absent from the big slow river cities where the major loci of Indian textiles were.
 
Top