Q1. [1] medium thorough-understanding
Which of the following best explains why Indian handloom weavers managed to survive competition from mill-made cloth in the early twentieth century, while Indian spinners had been largely wiped out in the nineteenth century?
(A) Weavers shifted to producing coarse cloth for rural markets, while spinners could not adapt to machine-spun yarn prices
(B) The colonial government imposed tariffs protecting weavers but not spinners
(C) Indian mills produced yarn but not cloth, so weavers had no domestic competition unlike spinners
(D) Weavers adopted the fly shuttle, doubling output and reducing costs enough to match mill prices, while spinners had no comparable innovation
- A Weavers received government subsidies whereas spinners did not.
- B Weavers adopted labour-saving devices and produced specialised cloth that machines could not replicate, whereas spinning was a uniform process easily mechanised.
- C The swadeshi movement specifically protected weaving but ignored spinning.
- D Weavers exported their goods to China while spinners depended only on the local market.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 15:02 · grounding rag
Model Answer
Answer: B
Weavers adopted labour-saving devices like the fly shuttle and produced specialised cloth (e.g., Banarasi saris, Madras lungis) that mills could not replicate, whereas spinning was a uniform process easily mechanised and undercut by cheap mill-made yarn.
Source: Chapter 4, Section 5.1 – Small-scale Industries Predominate
---
Explanation
The passage explicitly states two reasons weavers survived: (1) technological adaptation — the fly shuttle increased productivity and reduced costs; (2) product specialisation — intricate weaves and regional designs could not be imitated by mills. Spinners, by contrast, performed a uniform task that machines replicated cheaply, wiping them out in the 19th century. Option B captures both reasons. Examiners expect both points (innovation + specialisation) to be mentioned for full credit.