AI-generated practice question — model-generated for extra practice, not a previous-year CBSE board question.
The shift from Surat and Hoogly to Bombay and Calcutta was not merely geographical — it marked a fundamental transfer of control over Indian trade from Indian merchants to European companies.
Change in control: Earlier, Indian merchants, bankers, and supply merchants ran the entire trade network — financing production, procuring cloth, and exporting goods. By the 1750s, European companies secured monopoly trading rights, causing Surat's trade to collapse from ₹16 million to ₹3 million by the 1740s. The new ports, Bombay and Calcutta, were controlled by European companies using European ships.
Impact on Indian merchants: Old trading houses collapsed. Local bankers went bankrupt as credit dried up. Surviving merchants had to operate within networks shaped by European companies, losing independence.
Impact on weavers: The Company appointed gomasthas to control weavers directly. Through the advance system, weavers were tied to the Company, received miserably low prices, lost the freedom to sell to other buyers, and faced physical punishment for delays.
Source: Chapter 4, Sections 3.1 and 3.2
---
Examiners look for three distinct layers here: (1) the shift as a symbol of colonial takeover of trade, (2) the statistical/evidence-based decline of old ports, and (3) consequences for both Indian merchants and weavers separately. Avoid treating it as just a trade geography question — the word "justify" demands you explain the deeper power shift. Use the ₹16 million → ₹3 million figure as supporting evidence; it impresses examiners. The term gomastha and the advance system are key vocabulary to include.