Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

Indian industrialisation differed significantly from the Western image of large-scale mechanised factory production. Only 5% of industrial workers were in registered factories in 1911, rising to just 10% by 1931. The vast majority worked in small workshops, household units, and handicraft sectors in alleys and bylanes. Large industries were also geographically concentrated — about 67% in Bengal and Bombay alone.

This shows that Indian industrialisation was characterised by the coexistence of factory production and small-scale/non-mechanised production, not a replacement of one by the other. Handloom output actually nearly trebled between 1900 and 1940. Small-scale producers were not remnants of the past — their labour was integral to industrialisation.

Source: Chapter 4, Section 5.1 – Small-scale Industries Predominate

---

What examiners look for:

• The key statistic: only 5% (1911) and 10% (1931) in registered factories — quote this.
• Contrast with the "popular image" of big mechanised factories — name that image explicitly.
• Show that small-scale/handicraft sector actually grew, not declined (handloom example).
• Conclude that Indian industrialisation was a dual or mixed process.

Common mistakes: Students write only about factory growth and forget the non-mechanised sector, which is the entire point of the question.