Mumbai And Its Impact On The West Coast Of India

As workers moved to cities to work in factories, and progress in medical and sanitation practices improved, urban crowding became a huge issue. Additionally, where industry was taking over production in markets that had previously been dominated by small business owners, these skilled workers, weavers and the like, were now being forced to take jobs working for capitalist ventures-- often working in the industry coinciding with their master skill, but

One of the Industrial Revolution’s significant effects is that the price of products keeps going up. In addition, to compete with the bourgeoisie and manufacturers, the cost of hiring “tradespeople” fluctuates within very narrow limits (n.p). Instead of buying a new product, choosing to fix an old machine and making it work smoothly like a new one is such a smart choice for customers. The manual work has psychological impact by creating demand that clients had never had. It seems that physical jobs have become more necessary than

In the early to mid. 19th century, the world came to life with the introduction of machines that could create products in hours, compared to what it would take skilled craftsmen days to produce. These marvels began in Europe but soon found their way to the American shores. The very first textile mill was produced by an apprentice named Samuel Slater in 1790 after returning with the English secrets of the textile machinery still buzzing in his head (Wallace, 1985). Soon more factories began to rise up armed with the new technology. With the means to produce more products, railroads being built to ship vast amounts of goods between states and the mass amounts of wealth to be made during this revolution, what were once small rural farming towns

The Industrial Revolution was a revolution in every sense of the word, as it altered almost every aspect of live in the nineteenth century including technology, government, communication, environment and eventually society as a whole.1 Although industrialisation created many positives for modern society, for people in Britain up to the end of the nineteenth century it had many significantly negative consequences. With the long term advances made for society came the then current development of overcrowding cities abundant with pollution, health problems and poor living conditions for the working class. These poor conditions continued into the work place with young children exploited as workers as young as the age of four or five.2 There were consequences of the Industrial Revolution for people outside of the core of Britain. India, being the periphery in the model were exploited for their raw materials which were exported to Britain.

From 1880s-1930s mechanization has increased in both Japan and India. More machines had started to be used than using one’s hands which produced more cotton than hand spinning would have. Female workers were overworked in the cotton factories that favored using machines instead of hand spinning to increase the production of cloth and yarn.

Mass production became a new phenomenon that led to a drastic change in America's economy. This lead to specialization of labor causing a decrease in skill among the workers who would consistently produce one aspect of a product until “there is no more of that kind of work to do” and are then helpless (Doc C). This approach to manufacturing caused unstable jobs due to the fact that they were easily replaceable being that their jobs required minimal skill or knowledge. As mass production boomed, it led to a decrease

Throughout the late 1800s to the early 1900s, both japan and India saw a rise in the use of machines in the textile industry. Both showed similar recruitment techniques, but were not so similar in who the workers were and their working conditions.

Dr. Lalvani claims that “India’s success as the world largest democracy”(paragraph 7). The British made the Indians pay unfair taxes even when they had no money or struggling to get food and eat to survive. The Indians economy had a negative impact because of the manipulation of the cloth market and forced production of cash crops. Although Lalvani claims that “both nations benefited from trade links, the British wouldn’t let Indians make their own cloth to make clothes; thereby, manipulating the cloth market”(paragraph 10) The Indians started to buy the clothes from the British because it was so cheap that everyone started buying it instead of Indian cloth, ultimately putting people out of work and have no money for food. “However, by the imposition taxes in Indian they made fabric and a flood of cheap fabric that didn’t cost so much”(document

Following Industrialization, shown in Document 1b, cloth could be produced faster, and in greater quantities than ever before, due to new machinery, and more workers. (Doc 1b) Similarly, modern day China manufacturers high amounts of goods at an inexpensive price, the products can then be sold in U.S. (O.I.) Also, according to Document 2, it discusses how Industrialization led to the wages of spinners, and weavers being raised as a result of “Four great inventions [that] altered the character of the cotton manufacture”. (Doc 2) The author is clearly in favor of industrialization, seen in how he refers to the inventions as “great” and stating that the machines brought “great prosperity to the trade”.(P.O.V.)

Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 38, no. 6, 2010, pp. 839–852., www.jstor.org/stable/23654858. Usman, Ahmed, et al. "Elimination of Bonded Labour in South Asia: The Process Patronage and Labourers' Right to Access Micro Credit in Brick Kiln Industry of Pakistan." South Asian Studies (1026-678X), vol. 30, no. 1, Jan-Jun2015, pp.

During this time period, Japan and India had an increase in the machine-produced textile materials. A data chart gathered by British colonial authorities (Doc. 1) shows the production of cotton yarn and cloth in India. As the year increase, the hand spun yarn production rate has decreased and dropped 60 millions of pounds. While it shows the number of machine spun

Japan and India were both far behind the West in terms of technological advancement. Japan tried to modernize itself under the Meiji Restoration and India under the control the British East India Company became dependent on Britain. During the period of 1880s to the 1930s, Japan and India both had a significant increase in the use of machines in the cotton industry and as a result, there was a rapid increase in production. The mechanization of the cotton industry in Japan and India mirrored each other in the sense that workers from both countries received low wages and poor working conditions, however, the two countries differed in the fact that in Japan the workforce was composed of mostly women, and in contrast, the workers in India were mostly males. Both Japan and India saw an increase machine-spun cotton yarn.

From working in the textile industry to construction a train, there was a job for

The population quickly rose from 10,000 in 1661, to 60,000 in 1675. In 1687, the British East India Company transferred its headquarters from Surat to Mumbai. The city eventually became the headquarters of the Bombay Presidency. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 transformed Bombay into one of the largest seaports on the Arabian Sea. Over the next thirty years, the city grew into a major urban centre, spurred by an improvement in infrastructure and the construction of many of the city's institutions. The population of the city swelled to one million by 1906, making it the second largest in India after Calcutta.

The colonization of India and the immense transfer of wealth that moved from the latter to Britain were vital to the success of the British Empire. In fact, the Viceroy of British India in 1894 called India “the pivot of our Empire …” I examine the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the subcontinent. Besides highlighting the fact that without cheap labor and raw materials from India, the modernization of Britain during this era would have been highly unlikely, I will show how colonial policy led to the privation and death of millions of natives. I conclude that while India undoubtedly benefited from British colonial rule, the negatives for the subject population far outweighed the positives.