Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences

Traditional Crafts to Industrial Exports: An Economic Analysis of Leather’s Evolution in

India (1857-1947)

(A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts in Society & Culture)

By
Himani Verma
(23520014)

Supervisor
Dr. Sharada Channarayapatna
Assistant Professor
IIT Gandhinagar
April 2025

1
 DECLARATION

I, Himani Verma, Roll No. 23520014, declare that the dissertation titled “Traditional Crafts to Industrial Exports:
An Economic Analysis of Leather’s Evolution in British India (1857-1947)”, written under the supervision of
Professor Sharada Channarayapatna is original to the best of my knowledge. This dissertation is in accordance
with the requirements for partial fulfillment of research credits of the Master of Arts in Society and Culture, IIT
Gandhinagar. This dissertation was presented and defended on April, 2025. This dissertation has not been
submitted to any institution except for the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar.

Prof. Sharada Channarayapatna Himani Verma

Signature of Supervisor Signature of student

Roll number- 23520014

MA Society and Culture

HSS, IIT Gandhinagar

Date:
Place, IIT Gandhinagar

2
 ABSTRACT

This study examines the transformation of India’s leather industry under British colonial rule (1858–1947),
interrogating the paradoxical relationship between technological modernization and entrenched socio-economic
exploitation. Through an analysis of archival records, trade data, and colonial industrial reports, the research
reveals how mechanization and the adoption of chrome tanning—a revolutionary chemical process—were
subsumed within extractive imperial policies that prioritized resource extraction over local industrialization.
While chrome tanning replaced traditional vegetable methods, reducing production time from weeks to days and
enabling higher-quality leather, its benefits were systematically stifled by colonial trade structures, caste-based
labour exploitation, and environmental neglect. Far from fostering progress, mechanization deepened India’s
dependency as a supplier of raw materials while perpetuating social inequities and ecological degradation.
The study concludes that the leather industry epitomizes the paradox of colonial “progress.” Chrome tanning and
mechanization, though technologically transformative, reinforced India’s role as a resource periphery. Post-
independence, this legacy endured: tanneries remained clustered in ecologically fragile zones, caste hierarchies
persisted, and India struggled to transition from raw exports to value-added production. By exposing the interplay
of technology, caste, and imperialism, this research challenges narratives of colonial industrialization as a force of
development. Instead, it frames mechanization as a tool of subordination, highlighting how colonial policies
weaponized innovation to entrench dependency—a cautionary tale for postcolonial economies navigating the
legacies of extractive globalization.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to a number of individuals whose support and guidance have been pivotal in the completion of this
dissertation. Completing this thesis has been an enriching and transformative journey, one that would not have been
possible without the unwavering support, guidance, and encouragement of numerous individuals. I take this
opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who contributed to this academic milestone.
First and foremost, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my esteemed supervisor, Professor Sharada C.V., whose
expertise, patience, and insightful mentorship have been the cornerstone of this work. Her profound knowledge,
meticulous attention to detail, and constructive feedback guided me through every stage of this research. She
challenged me to think critically, refine my ideas, and approach problems with rigor and creativity. I am deeply
grateful for her unwavering faith in my abilities, even during moments of uncertainty, and for fostering an
environment of intellectual curiosity and academic excellence.
I am equally indebted to Professor Deepak Singhania for his invaluable insights and encouragement. His expertise in
the field of application of Economic theory and his ability to simplify complex concepts significantly enriched my
understanding. His timely advice, thoughtful critiques, and willingness to engage in stimulating discussions helped
shape the direction of this thesis. I deeply appreciate his generosity in sharing resources, time, and knowledge, which
proved instrumental in my thesis writing.
To my family—my mother, father, and elder sister—I owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Their support,
sacrifices, and unwavering belief in me have been my anchor. Their constant encouragement and patience, gave me
the strength to persist. A special mention goes to my dear friend, Avi Somani, whose unwavering support and
optimism carried me through the toughest phases of this journey. I also extend my sincere gratitude to my classmates
and friends for their camaraderie and contributions. Their Collaborative discussions, shared resources, and mutual
encouragement created a nurturing academic environment for me.

4
 Table of Contents

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………………………………2

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………………….….4

LIST OF MAPS……………………………………………………………………………………………..6

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES………………………………………………………………………...6

CHAPTER 1: From Artisans to Assembly Lines……………………………………………………………7

CHAPTER 2: Transformation of India’s Leather Industry…………………………………………………17

CHAPTER 3: Chrome Tanning, Colonial Exploitation, and the Unprocessed Export Economy…………..27

CHAPTER 4: Colonial Modernity and Its Discontents……………………………………………………..41

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………...46

APPENDIX

5
 List of Maps

Map of India’s Leather, Boot & Shoe, and Leather Goods Industries…………………………………………….. 9

List of Figures and Tables

Fig 2: Process of Leather Production…………………………………………………………………………..19

Table 1: Export of Hides & Skins by Sea, 1890-1939 (Quinquennial averages)………………………….......21

Table 2: 1945 India Kips Production by Region………………………………………………………………22

Fig 3: Quantity of British India’s Raw and Tanned Hides & Skins Exports by Sea (1875–1915)……………23

Fig 4: Value of British India’s Raw and Tanned Hides & Skins Exports by Sea (1875–1915)………………23

Table 3: Number of Tanneries by Region in Colonial India (1888–89)……………………………………...29

Table 4: Coasting Trade of Raw Hides and Skins (1886-87)………………………………………………...31

Fig 5: Number of Tanneries in Colonial India (1888-89) …….……………………………………...……...32

Fig 6: Effect of Chrome Tanning on Total Exports of Hides & Skins………………………………………33

Table 5: Export of Raw Kips from India…………………………………………………………………….34

Fig 6: Trend of Export of Raw hides (1880-1930)…………………………………………………………..35

Fig 7: Trend of Export of Tanned hides (1880-1930)………………………………………………………..35

Table 4: Employment in Leather, 1901–1931………………………………………………………………..39

6
CHAPTER 1: From Artisans to Assembly Lines: Colonial Modernity, Caste, and the Industrialization of
Leather in India (1857-1947)

1.1 Introduction: Leather and Colonialism

The purpose of this study is to examine the economic, social, and environmental implications of the shift from
traditional vegetable tanning to chrome tanning of leather in colonial India. By assessing historical trade data and
industry practices before and after the introduction of chrome tanning in 1858, this research aims to provide a
comprehensive understanding of how this technological shift influenced the leather trade in terms of productivity,
export growth, and employment patterns. The research period spans from 1857 to 1947, focusing on two key cities
—Cawnpore (modern-day Kanpur) and Madras (modern-day Chennai) in Bengal and Madras Presidencies,
respectively —both of which were significant centers of the leather industry during this period. While much
research has been dedicated to textiles and agriculture in colonial India, the leather industry has received
comparatively less attention. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining its unique role in India’s economic
history (Kapoor 2021; Roy 2002).
As a trade commodity, Leather has undergone several transformations—social, technological, economic, and
political—throughout Indian history. It has always been an essential material for both colonial and post-colonial
states due to its applications in industry, warfare, footwear, and apparel. The process of leather-making involves
treating animal hides and skins with chemical agents to prevent their natural decay and enhance their durability.
Raw skins, though initially flexible, become hard and putrid when dried. However, the tanning process preserves
them by chemically bonding skin constituents with tannin, making the material stronger, water-resistant, and more
supple.
The term “Tannin” is a naturally occurring polyphenolic compound used in the tanning process of leather
production. It is derived primarily from plant sources such as tree barks (e.g., oak, hemlock, chestnut), fruits, and
leaves. Tannins react with proteins in animal hides to form strong, durable leather by cross-linking collagen fibers,
which makes the leather resistant to decomposition, flexible, and durable. In the leather industry, tannins are a key
component in vegetable tanning, one of the oldest and most traditional methods of tanning leather. Vegetable
tanning involves soaking the hides in a solution of tannin-rich materials over several weeks, allowing the tannin to
penetrate and bond with the collagen fibers in the hides, turning them into leather (Cavaco-Paulo and Carvalho
2012).
The term “leather” is broadly used to refer to both intermediate stages of production, such as wet-blue, and the
finished product. In commercial terms, “hides” refer to the raw, dressed, or tanned skins of cows, bullocks, and
buffaloes, while “skins” are derived from goats, deer, and other non-horned animals. “Kips” are obtained from
young cattle and are thinner and softer than hides (Roy 2009).
From the mid-19th century, the British sought to transform Indian leatherwork into a scientific industry (Kapoor
2021). Leather was one of the most significant quasi-service industries that became commercialized during the
colonial period. By this time, India had become one of the world's largest exporters of tanned hides while
simultaneously

7
importing finished leather goods such as boots and shoes from Europe. The history of leather tanning in India dates
back to around 400 BCE, originating from religious practices involving animal sacrifices. By the 1st century,
Manu assigned the task of skinning dead animals to herdsmen, but by 1200 AD, this work had become associated
with lower castes due to increasing social stratification. Historical records also indicate that tanned leather and
leather goods were exported to the Middle East and China (Roy 1994).
In the late 18th century, leather production gained scientific attention, attracting wealthy merchants who
recognized its commercial potential. The British further intensified the industry in the early 20th century,
introducing mass production techniques, most notably the “East India Tanning Process,” to meet military and
clothing demands. This method, developed during colonial rule, continues to be recognized in the leather trade
today. (Kapoor 2021, 983) states, “Leather was an important commodity for the British Empire in terms of
industrial production and scientific innovation.”
The development of technical education in leather tanning and manufacturing must be understood within the
broader history of hide and leather production in India. The incorporation of leather into the colonial economy led
to a massive expansion of production and a transformation in the organization of the industry. Despite these
significant changes, leather continued to be perceived as a “traditional” industry, carrying social stigma and
associations with lower caste status. This entrenched perception persisted well into the twentieth century, shaping
the industry's socio-economic dynamics even as it evolved through modernization and scientific advancements

8
Fig 1: India’s Leather, Boot & Shoe, and Leather Goods Industries: Regional Distribution and Manufacturing
Centers (Source: Das, B. M. Report of the Panel on Leather and Leather Goods. New Delhi: Government of
India, 1947.)

A historical map of India highlights the geographic distribution of the leather, boot, shoe, and leather goods
industries, marking key locations involved in tanning, manufacturing, and trade. The reference section categorizes
different regions based on their specific roles, including existing tanneries, recommended areas for manufacturing
various leather products, and centers specializing in processes such as chrome tanning, buffalo hide processing,
and machine-made shoe production. Major cities like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Cawnpore are identified as
key hubs for leather production, reflecting the concentration of industrial activity in these regions.

The tanning industry in India historically developed along two distinct belts: one utilizing Avaram (Cassia
auriculata) and the other Babool (Acacia arabica). Cawnpore was situated within the Babool tanning belt, while
Madras fell within the Avaram tanning belt. These regional specializations were based on the availability of local
tanning agents and influenced the type of leather produced in each area (Sharma 2005).
9
The formalization of leatherwork in India began around the mid-19th century, driven by two primary factors. First,
it was the increased presence of British armed forces following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 that created a
heightened demand for military-grade leather goods. Second, Britain’s expanding empire and its frequent wars
and military campaigns required a steady supply of high-quality leather, leading to increased industrial production
in India. As a result, modern tanneries and leather factories were established, marking a significant departure from
traditional artisanal leather production. These industrial units operated on a large scale, employing wage labor and
utilizing machinery to produce leather goods more efficiently for both domestic consumption and export markets.
The growth of the leather industry was boosted by better transportation, such as railways and ports, making it
easier to move raw materials and finished products. Improved connectivity allowed tanneries and manufacturers to
access broader markets and ensured that Indian leather products could meet the growing demands of the global
trade network. This shift transformed leather production from a localized craft to an organized industrial sector and
integrated India more deeply into the global leather trade during the colonial period (Roy 2002).
1.2 Social Aspect of Leatherwork

“Leather is a sensuous object marked by complex effects of desire and disgust” (Kapoor 2021, 164). Despite its
value as a material, the process of tanning has historically been associated with social stigma, particularly in India,
where it was predominantly carried out by caste groups such as the Chamars in North India. These communities
were bound to this occupation due to their hereditary status as untouchables, enduring extreme social ostracization
because of the malodorous nature of their work, which involved flaying the carcasses of dead animals. As Roy
notes, “Flaying was more rarely the right or duty attaching to castes,” emphasizing how this labor was not merely
an economic activity but also deeply entrenched in caste-based servitude.

Tanning, originally a rural craft, was practiced under oppressive conditions, with local tanners positioned at the
lowest ranks of the caste hierarchy. They had minimal bargaining power, particularly in dealing with peasants, their
primary customers. The overwhelming stench associated with leather tanning further reinforced their
marginalization, marking them as polluted and untouchable within the social order (Roy 1994). With
industrialization, leather workers were gradually introduced to modern work conditions. Unlike traditional setups
where they had to crouch on floors while working, industrial tanneries provided designated workstations, allowing
them to stand upright (Kapoor 2021).

10
However, despite these structural changes, the economic and social position of leather artisans remained
precarious. Their share of grain and economic benefits was disproportionately smaller than their representation in
the population. The export-oriented leather industry was concentrated in major colonial trade centers such as
Cawnpore, Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. The high-quality standards demanded by foreign consumers
encouraged hide merchants to establish factories in these cities, further shifting the control of the leather trade
away from traditional artisans to large-scale commercial enterprises. Traditionally, the leather industry relied on
the vegetable tanning method, which used organic products such as babool, oak bark, valonia, divi-divi, and
myrobalan nuts. This process was slow, taking several days to produce leather with inferior elasticity and water
resistance. The mechanization of tannery operations introduced a significant transformation in labor practices,
creating a physical barrier between human skin and animal hides. Unlike earlier times, when tanners handled hides
directly, factory interventions reduced the degree of contact. Machines allowed workers to stand while making
shoes rather than crouching on the floor, a shift that symbolized a break from earlier labor-intensive and physically
degrading conditions.
Previously, leather workers dealt directly with tannins in organic compounds, often leaving a distinctive “red
stain” on their hands. This stain became a visible marker of caste identity, further exposing them to social
discrimination. With industrialization, many Chamars migrated to Cawnpore, where they came to be known as
“tanners” or “workers.” However, despite the shift to factory-based production, the stigma associated with
leatherwork persisted. (Kapoor 2021, 987) states, “The pollution of leatherwork was retained in these new
industrial spaces and identities like those of tanners and workers.” Even in the mechanized factories of Cawnpore,
the caste-based discrimination that had long defined the profession remained entrenched. The colonial
administration significantly shaped these modern work environments, establishing large-scale leather factories in
Cawnpore and other industrial hubs during the second half of the 19th century. While these factories introduced
new labour practices where the workers had their work stations and did not have to sit in a position for long hours,
they did not eliminate the social prejudices associated with the profession, ensuring that caste-based identities
continued to shape the experiences of leather workers in colonial India.
1.3 Scientific Intervention of Chemical Tanning

The British played a crucial role in industrializing leather production in the early 1900s, introducing mass
production techniques such as the “East India Tanning Process” to efficiently meet military and clothing demands.
This method, which emphasized large-scale, standardized production, remains recognized in the leather trade
today. During the early 1930s, a significant portion of leather produced in India, particularly from Chennai, was
exported to Britain in raw or semi-processed form under the name EI Kips (East India), highlighting the colonial
economy’s reliance on Indian raw materials for British industries (Thilakavathy and Maya 2021, 461).

The adoption of “chrome tanning” using Chromium-6 revolutionized the industry by significantly reducing the
time required for tanning, making large-scale commercial production feasible. Before this, Indian tanners
predominantly relied on the “vegetable tanning” method, which utilized organic substances such as the bark of the
babool tree, myrobalan nuts, and avaram bark. This traditional process took several days and produced leather that
was less elastic and more susceptible to water damage. Despite its limitations, vegetable tanning remains in
practice today in small-scale, rural household units, preserving an artisanal tradition.

11
Leather manufacturing consists of four distinct stages. The first stage, Pre-Tanning, involves the removal of
organic materials such as blood, fat, and hair from animal hides to prepare them for further processing. In the
second stage, Tanning, the hides are treated with chemicals, most notably Chromium-6, to stabilize the protein
matrix, transforming them into wet-blue leather, which is resistant to organic decomposition. This chemical
process prevents the leather from decaying and enhances its durability. The third stage, post-tanning, involves
further treatment of the wet-blue leather with oils and additional chemicals to refine its texture, making it soft,
flexible, and visually appealing. Finally, the fourth stage, Finishing, involves adding colors and patterns to the
leather, tailoring it for specific aesthetic and functional requirements in the market (Kapoor 2021).
However, the transition from vegetable-based tanning to chemical-based tanning signified a fundamental shift in
knowledge production within the industry. This transformation established the role of chemists as key figures in
the tanning process, replacing generations of inherited, experience-based expertise with precise, standardized
chemical procedures. This shift not only altered the nature of the industry but also reflected broader changes in the
way industrial knowledge was produced and valued in colonial and post-colonial India (Bhattacharya 2018).
1.4 Cawnpore and Madras: Centers of Production

In India, beef consumption is limited due to religious and cultural reasons, with most people refraining from eating
it. As a result, large abattoirs or meatpacking factories are rare. Instead, animal slaughter for food occurs on a
smaller scale in municipal slaughterhouses and villages. Consequently, the majority of hides produced in India,
numbering in the millions, are of the “fallen” type, obtained from animals that die of natural causes (Government
of India 1943).

During the export boom triggered by World War I, leather factories began to emerge in cities like Cawnpore,
Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. Cawnpore became a major hub for leather production, with early experimentation
in tanning materials such as cutch and divi-divi. Lieutenant John Stewart, a commissary of ordnance in charge of
the arsenal in Cawnpore, introduced a small tannery operated by soldiers who had prior experience working in
tanyards in England. The tannery utilized commissariat cattle and babool bark as raw materials. The success of this
small operation led to substantial government investment, resulting in the establishment of a large tannery with
proper buildings and equipment. In 1861, the Government Harness and Saddlery Factory was set up, where
Lieutenant Stewart introduced English methods, tools, and machines, including chrome tanning processes. This
factory’s success spurred the creation of other factories in Cawnpore, including the Army Boot Factory (1880), the
North-West Tannery Company (1904), the United Provinces Tannery Co. (1904), and the Cawnpore Tannery
(1896) (Sharma 2005).

Several factors contributed to Cawnpore’s rise as a leather production center. Its geographical location was ideal
for the procurement of raw materials. The presence of commissariat cattle hides and the proximity to a region rich
in hides from Northern India were significant advantages. The railway system also connected Cawnpore to
Bengal, Punjab, and the Central Provinces, areas that yielded the best cattle hides in India. Additionally,
Cawnpore’s location near cities such as Agra, Aligarh, Delhi, and Meerut, where meat trade and local slaughtering
were common, further supported the leather industry. The extensive railway network and excellent road
connectivity made the transportation of leather to port towns and markets efficient. The region also

12
benefited from a large population of Chamars, a caste traditionally involved in leather-making, ensuring a steady
supply of cheap labor for the factories.

Meanwhile, Madras (now Chennai) emerged as another prominent tanning hub, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where
the conditions were favorable for setting up tanning industries. The region's sunny climate, availability of tanning
materials like myrobalan bark, and a cheap local labor force contributed to its growth as a leather production
center. The British rulers also provided strong technical backing, and the availability of chloride-free water from
the Palar River and land at low prices made it an attractive location for tannery establishments.

Ranipet and Ambur, two of the most important areas for leather production, were located in the North Arcot district
of the Madras Presidency. Wealthy leather manufacturing units acquired large tracts of land for their industries.
Initially, tanning effluents were disposed of by dumping them in small pits on the tannery grounds. However, as
chrome tanning methods did not involve using vegetable extracts as manure, they became more prevalent, the
land's productivity declined, and crops failed. Farmers, whose lands became unproductive, were forced to sell their
land at low prices or work for the tanneries that had purchased it. Eventually, tanners resorted to dumping their
effluents in the nearby Palar River, further exacerbating environmental issues. The effluents from the tanning
industry, including organic and inorganic substances, dissolved and suspended particles, high oxygen demand, and
toxic metal salts, exceeded permissible pollution limits and caused significant environmental harm.

In 1903, Alfred Chatterton introduced chrome tanning in Madras, which revolutionized the tanning industry in the
region. However, the expansion of the tanning industry in Tamil Nadu came at a great environmental cost. The
Palar River, once a free-flowing body of water, has now dried up, with only the ongoing discharge of tanning
effluents remaining. As Thilakavathy (2021) notes, India became a destination for industries facing closure due to
European pollution concerns. By the late 20th century, the northern districts of Tamil Nadu produced around 70%
of the tanned leather in India (Sahasranaman 2000).

While both Cawnpore and Madras played crucial roles in the evolution of India’s leather industry, their trajectories
were shaped by distinct regional factors. Cawnpore’s central location in North India made it a hub for collecting
hides from regions with thriving meat trades. Madras’s favorable climate and access to natural resources like
myrobalan bark and chloride-free water made it ideal for tanning. Both Cawnpore and Madras benefited from their
proximity to British military and administrative centers, which provided a steady supply of raw materials and
demand for leather goods. Both cities relied on cheap labor from traditional leatherworking communities, but the
social stigma associated with leatherwork persisted despite industrialization. The migration of Chamars to
Cawnpore and traditional leatherworkers locally called Chakilliyans in Madras transformed their identities from
rural artisans to urban industrial workers. The environmental consequences of industrialization were more
pronounced in Madras, where the pollution of the Palar River had long-term effects on agriculture and local
communities. In Cawnpore, focusing on military production and export-oriented manufacturing led to rapid
industrial growth and reinforced social and economic inequalities.

The leather industry faced significant challenges due to inefficient flaying, curing, and slaughtering practices,
which degraded the quality of hides. Poor animal care further exacerbated these issues. Recognizing these

13
defects, the Hide Cess Enquiry Committee, appointed by the Government of India in 1929, made specific
recommendations to improve the quality of Indian hides and skins. These reforms aimed to standardize production
processes and enhance the competitiveness of Indian leather in global markets.

1.5 Methodology for the study: Archival Traces and Economic Histories

This study draws extensively on archival research conducted across key repositories in India. In December 2024, I
visited Deccan College, Pune, to review colonial-era gazetteers and archival records, explicitly focusing on
documents related to Cawnpore (Kanpur) and Madras (Chennai) leather industries. This was followed by a visit to
the Asiatic Society of Bombay (Mumbai), where I examined rare colonial trade reports, administrative
correspondences, and industrial surveys to contextualize the socio-economic dynamics of leather production.

In February 2025, the research was further supported by an online consultation with Professor Chinmay Thumbe,
Associate Professor in the Economics Area at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), whose
expertise in economic history provided critical insights into colonial trade policies and their long-term impacts.
Later that month, I collected data at the National Archives of India and the Central Secretariat Library in New
Delhi. I accessed primary sources about the leather sector, such as colonial trade ledgers, census reports, and
agricultural marketing reports, such as Hides and Skins.

Throughout this process, I received guidance from my thesis supervisors, Professor Sharada C.V. and Professor
Deepak Singhania, who offered invaluable feedback on source interpretation, methodological rigor, and the
integration of archival findings into broader historical narratives, also using economic concepts to do data analysis.

1.6 Conclusion: Legacies of Exploitation and Post-Colonial Crossroads

The evolution of the leather industry in India between 1857 and 1947 reflects the broader economic and social
transformations brought about by British colonial rule. The industry’s shift from traditional craft-based production
to industrialized export-oriented manufacturing had profound implications for leatherworkers, particularly lower-
caste communities like the Chamars. While colonial policies and technological advancements marginalized
traditional artisans, they created new opportunities for adaptation and resistance.

The leather industry serves as a microcosm of the interplay between exploitation and resilience in colonial India.
As the country moved toward independence in 1947, the industry stood at a crossroads, poised to play a crucial
role in India’s post-colonial economic development. The lessons from this period continue to resonate in
contemporary debates about economic development, social justice, and the preservation of traditional crafts in a
globalized world. The legacy of the leather industry’s evolution underscores the enduring impact of colonialism on
India’s social and economic fabric.

14
CHAPTER 2: Transformation of India’s Leather Industry: Caste, Capital, and Industrialization under
British Rule

The Indian leather industry historically diverged from global patterns due to cultural and socio-economic factors.
Contrary to many countries where hide production was tied to meat consumption, India’s primary sources of hides
—kips (cow hides) and buffs (buffalo hides)—were largely derived from animals that died naturally or were aged,
rather than slaughtered for beef, which held limited cultural acceptance.

The traditional leather industry in India comprised processes such as flaying, tanning, and manufacturing leather
products, historically performed by specialized communities such as tanners and product makers (Bhargava 2022,
2). This division of labour was deeply intertwined with social hierarchies, as the communities engaged in these
occupations were stratified according to notions of purity and pollution (Bhargava 2022, 2). Between 1901 and
1939, the sector underwent significant expansion, with the number of large tanneries increasing from 13 to 66 and
the labor force doubling during this period (Roy 1994, 480). The industry relied heavily on raw materials sourced
from fallen animals, with an estimated 86.7 percent of kips (young animal hides) and 87.2 percent of buffalo hides
derived from carcasses rather than slaughtered animals, as indicated by a 1952 government report (India,
Agricultural Marketing Report 1952). These practices entrenched economic dependencies on caste-based labor
systems while shaping the industry’s growth trajectory under colonial and postcolonial regimes.

This highlights how the division of labor (allocating specific tasks to different groups) in a society shapes social
hierarchies by linking work to cultural notions of purity and pollution. Bhargava (2022) likely connects this to how
such hierarchies persist by codifying roles as inherently “pure” or “impure,” naturalizing discrimination. In many
traditional or caste-based societies, certain occupations (e.g., manual scavenging, leatherworking, or handling
waste) were deemed “polluting” due to religious, ritual, or cultural beliefs. Those assigned such work are often
marginalized and placed at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Conversely, roles associated with “purity” (e.g.,
teaching, priesthood, or landowning) are valorized, granting higher status to those who perform them.

Colonial industrialization thus exploited existing caste hierarchies to meet economic demands. The expansion of
tanneries relied on cheap labour from communities historically assigned to “polluting” work, ensuring a steady
supply of hides while avoiding social disruption. For instance, the rise of firms like Cooper Allen & Co. depended
on this caste-segregated workforce, even as they modernized production techniques. Meanwhile, the cultural taboo
around beef consumption and leatherwork allowed colonial authorities to frame these roles as “natural” to certain
communities, legitimizing their exploitation.

In this way, the leather industry became a microcosm of colonial India’s contradictions: technological
advancement and economic growth coexisted with the rigid perpetuation of caste-based oppression. The industry’s
dependence on fallen animals and caste labour underscores how colonial capitalism reinforced, rather than
reformed, social hierarchies, leveraging cultural notions of purity and pollution to sustain both economic
efficiency and systemic inequality.

15
2.1 Emergence of Chemical Tanneries in Cawnpore & Madras

One of India's biggest factories engaged in making boots and shoes was situated in the United Provinces (Cooper
Allen & Co. 1943). The Government Harness and Saddlery Factory, the only kind in India, was also located in
Cawnpore (Sharma 1946, 163).
However, in India, the provincial industries could not keep pace with the modern processes of chrome tanning,
although introduced in Madras in 1903 by Alfred Chatterton, Director of Technical and Industrial Inquiry, Madras
Presidency. He made experiments with the assistance of an English expert to manufacture Indian chrome leather,
and with their joint persistent efforts, was successful in manufacturing it. Chatterton moved ahead and set up the
Government Chrome Tannery near Madras to manufacture chrome-tanned leather to substitute imported leather
from Europe and America (Chatterjee 1908).

The efforts of Chatterton reflect that India might have moved on the path of modernizing its industries if proper
technical and financial assistance had been extended. Although Chatterton was pressing hard to modernize
industry, the colonial government discontinued its efforts by closing the Industries Department in 1910 to
safeguard British commercial interests.

British firms in Cawnpore, such as Cooper Allen & Co., began experimenting with chrome tanning around 1907–
1910 but faced resistance from colonial capitalists who prioritized raw hide exports over modernizing Indian
tanneries (Tayabji 1997). The Madras Chamber of Commerce (backed by Cawnpore’s British tanners) actively
opposed efforts to adopt chrome tanning in India, fearing competition with European imports (Tayabji 1997).

Interestingly, British Chrome tanners in Cawnpore upheld Madras Chamber’s objection to Chatterton's chrome
tanning experiment (Tayabji 1997). The influential relationships of the British capitalists’ class with the colonial
government restrained the technology transfer, which impeded the diffusion of technology for industrial
development. Though the Cawnpore leather industry organized leather manufacturing on modern lines by the
second half of the nineteenth century to safeguard military needs, it did not keep pace, and Madras moved ahead by
adopting chrome tanning processes.

Cooper Allen & Co. and the North West Tannery in Cawnpore had introduced the footwear with the brand name
‘fux’, and this brand was quite popular throughout the country before the company adopted the new chrome
leather. However, chrome leather was extensively used in the West in 1914–1918, but it was not until 1935 that a
chrome-tanned boot was universally accepted in India (Cooper Allen & Co. 1943). Thus, by 1937, India was the
largest supplier of chrome-tanned leather to the United Kingdom. The chrome leather manufactured by Cooper
Allen & Co. became popular in North Indian households (Cooper Allen & Co. 1943). The factory had a workshop,
a laboratory, and a highly specialized machine shop.

Tanneries were strategically designed to optimize the leather-making process, incorporating elevated tan pits to
ensure efficient drainage and prevent water stagnation. The layout of a tanner’s shop typically featured a two-story
structure, each level dedicated to distinct stages of production. On the lower floor, raw hides underwent initial
preparation—shaving, scouring, and cleaning—to remove impurities and excess tissue. Once processed below, the
hides were moved to the upper floor, receiving finishing treatments such as oiling, polishing, and drying. This
vertical separation of tasks not only streamlined the workflow but also minimized

16
contamination risks, as the upper level’s drier, ventilated environment facilitated thorough drying and ensured the
leather achieved the desired quality and durability (Watt 1890).

2.2 From Bark to Chrome: Traditional and Modern Tanning Processes in Colonial India

Curing refers to the temporary preservation of hides and skins using salt and salt solution. Raw hides and skins
need to be flayed and cured for preservation. This was the first step in the labour process involved in the production
of leather, usually done by those who flayed the carcasses of animals, before being sold in hides and skins markets.
(Bhattacharya 2018)

In the process of vegetable tanning, the indigenous tan products which had been used in India in large-scale
tanning for the production of more or less standard types of leather are the bark of babool (Acacia arabica), bark of
Avaram (Cassia auriculata), and myrobalans (fruit of Terminalia chebula). Babool bark has been the principal
tanning material in North India (Government of India 1947).

Source: (Bhattacharya 2018)

The flowchart above outlines the sequential stages of leather production from raw materials to finished goods:

1. Carcass Collection: Raw animal hides/skins are sourced from slaughterhouses or suppliers.
2. Flaying: The process of removing the skin/hide from the animal carcass.
3. Curing: Preservation of the raw hides using salt or chemicals to prevent decomposition.
4. Tanning: Treatment of the cured hides with tannins (vegetable or chrome-based) to convert them into
durable leather.
5. Leather Products Manufacturing: The tanned leather is cut, dyed, and fashioned into final products (e.g.,
shoes, bags, upholstery).

Vegetable tanning is the traditional tanning method. It is of two types, i.e., bag tanning and pit tanning. In bag
tanning, the carcass is sewn together into a bag and then tanned with amla, babool, or myrobalan bark. This is done
by filling the bag with the tannin solution and hanging it up for several days to absorb it. In the second method, pit
tanning, the open hide is soaked in pits and tanned with the same vegetable substance instead of being sewn into
bags. Before tanning is done, various pre-tanning operations such as salting, liming (soaking the hide/skin in a lime
solution to remove the hair from the outer side, or the skin side of the hide/skin, as well as to make the inner flesh
side bouncy) and deliming (soaking the limed hide/ skin in sulphuric acid to remove lime) are done in pits filled
with the respective solutions. Traditional vegetable tanning is highly labour-intensive and involves hard manual
work in extremely difficult working conditions. One problem with
17
Vegetable tanning is the long time it takes to tan the hide. It takes nearly three weeks for the hide to be tanned,
rendering it relatively less economical than chrome tanning (Damodaran, Mansingh, and Centre for Education and
Communication 2008).

On average, the tanning process takes about 30-50 days to complete (Roy 1994). The advent of ‘Chemical
Tanning’ was through a process of experimentation by Chemists in Germany in the 1870s and early 1880s, and
was finally developed and patented in 1884 in the USA by Augustus Schulz, a German immigrant. Since
chromium compounds were commonly used for the tanning process, the term ‘chrome’ tanning came to be also
used interchangeably for chemical tanning (Bhattacharya 2018).

The most significant effect was the dramatic acceleration of production speed, which compelled a restructuring of
production systems. These organizational shifts critically transformed the methods and scale of hide and skin
production across India.
Apart from Chrome tanning’s speed and its ability to allow processes that took months in traditional vegetable or
bark tanning to be completed in a few days, another major advantage for manufacturers was its ability to produce
leather in different colours and textures, with greater elasticity and resistance to water. The early processes—pre-
tanning operations (curing, soaking, liming, scudding, fleshing, bating, and deliming)—remained identical, except
that they were sought to be speeded up by chemicals as well (Bhattacharya 2018).

Chrome tanning is the more modern process of tanning using powdered chrome as the tanning substance. There are
two major stages to this process:

1. Production of semi-finished leather through wet blue tanning.

2. Crust formation and leather finishing.

Both these stages can be done in the same tannery (referred to as an integrated tannery here) or divided between
different tanneries. Each of these major processes involves several sub-processes, including complicated and
sometimes repeated operations. In chrome tanning, the ‘wet blue’ stage is the preliminary stage, when the leather
acquires a light blue hue. It prepares raw hides and skins for the first stage of the finishing process by tanning them
in chrome liquor. The chrome-tanned leather undergoes several operations to be available in the crust stage as
semi-finished leather. In each of the operations that produce semi-finished leather, it is possible to use purely
manual, highly mechanized operations, or a range of semi-manual and semi-mechanized operations. The process
of finishing also involves a large number of operations that are a combination of manual and mechanized
operations, which can be split up between as many units as there are operations, or can all be done under one roof
in highly mechanized factories or somewhere in between (Bhattacharya 2018).

India possessed the largest cattle population in the world, and despite the near absence of meat consumption and
hence slaughtering, India had one of the world’s largest supplies of hides and skins due to high natural mortality
(Roy 1994, 469).

“In India, tanning was reinforced by caste” (Roy 1994, 464). The Chamars of the northern plains from Bengal to
Punjab and the Chakkiliyans of Tamil Nadu were the two prominent castes who performed a variety of services in
the villages with respect to leather tanning (Roy 1994).

18
2.3 Trade, Exploitation, and Economic Dependency: Export Dynamics of Hides and Skins

The trade in hides, skins, and leather as it existed prior to the war is given under each of the following sub-
divisions:

a) Raw hides and raw skins

b) Tanned hides and tanned skins
c) Finished leather and leather manufacture
Until 1875, the exports of tanned hides and skins were very much restricted owing to the export duty of 3% that
was levied on them, while the raw ones were allowed to be exported free. The repeal of this duty in August 1875
stimulated the exports of the former (Vakil and Deolalkar 1932).

Table 1: Export of Hides & Skins by Sea, 1890-1939 (Quinquennial averages)

(Source: Roy 1994)

The table presents the export of cured and tanned hides from British India by sea between 1890 and 1939, based on
quinquennial (five-year) averages. Cured hides refer to those that have undergone dehydration, while Tanned
hides are the finished product after processing animal hides. The data reveals significant export quantities and
values fluctuations, influenced by economic conditions and exchange rate variations, as the rupee-to-pound
conversion rates changed over time.

“The gradual decline in the proportion of cured hides, that is, sun dried in the village, in total exports , is a rough
indicator of the urbanisation of the industry” (Roy 1994, 471).

19
The export of cured and tanned hides peaked around 1910–14 but saw a sharp decline by the 1930s. Tanned hides
first appeared in the records between 1900 and 1904, and their trade became particularly notable during 1915–19.
This period also peaked in export value, with cured hides reaching Rs 130 million and tanned hides Rs 87.1
million. Additionally, the unit value index was at its highest (142) in 1915–19, indicating a surge in prices, while
the terms of trade fluctuated, reflecting shifts in profitability over time. These variations highlight the impact of
broader economic conditions on the hide and leather export industry during the colonial period.

According to Roy (1994), the Railways boosted tanning by improving trade access, unlike traditional transport
modes. However, expanding trade required more than just infrastructure—it needed control over cattle mortality.
This led to the rise of municipal slaughterhouses in the late 19th century, which flourished by the 1920s.
Slaughtered cattle provided superior hides to fallen cattle, which came from starved or diseased animals. The
success of slaughterhouses was also driven by the emerging meat market, ensuring a steady supply of quality
hides.

Table 2: 1945 India Kips Production by Region

The table outlines 1943-kip (lightweight cattle hide) production in India, showing regional disparities: Madras led
with 3.5 million kips due to its large cattle population (16.6 million) and high hide recovery rates (16.9% fallen,
4.1% slaughtered), while the United Provinces, despite the largest cattle population (21.7 million), produced only
1.1 million kips due to low utilization rates (4.7% fallen, 0.6% slaughtered). Nationally, India’s 140 million cattle
yielded 14.2 million kips, with listed regions contributing 6.8 million, suggesting significant input from unlisted
areas. Production efficiency hinged on combining cattle numbers with effective hide recovery, likely influenced
by regional practices or wartime conditions.
In 1945, Madras had 12% of India’s cattle, but 25% of the kip production. Not only the slaughtering rate, but also
the proportion of fallen cattle, was higher than average. There is no reason to believe that animals had higher
mortality in Madras, so reporting and collection must have been better (Roy 1994).

20
 British India’s Raw and Tanned Hides & Skins Exports by Sea (1875–1915)

Fig 3: Quantity of exports of hides and skins, raw and tanned, from British India by Sea to foreign countries for 5-
year periods from 1875 (in thousands of cwts), cwts being the unit of weight equal to 100 pounds.

Source: (Board, Indian Munitions. Review of the Trade in Indian Hides, Skins and Leather, 1919).

Fig 4: Value of exports of hides and skins, raw and tanned, from British India by Sea to foreign countries for 5-year
periods from 1875 (in lakhs of ₹).
Source: (Board, Indian Munitions. Review of the Trade in Indian Hides, Skins and Leather, 1919)

The data reveals that World War I (1914–1918) initially boosted demand for British India’s hides and skins, as
reflected in the peak exports of 1.8 million cwts (quantity) and ₹143,582 lakhs (value) by 1910–15. Wartime needs
for leather (e.g., military boots, saddles) likely drove this surge, with raw hides/skins dominating exports (75–80%
of totals). Chrome tanning, introduced around 1901, subtly influenced the rise in tanned hide exports

21
(doubling in quantity and quadrupling in value by 1910–15), as the method enabled faster, higher-quality
production. Yet, colonial policies prioritized raw material extraction for European industries, limiting chrome
tanning’s potential, which had already come into vogue from 1900 onwards. Over 80% of exports remained raw
hides and skins, underscoring India’s role as a supplier of cheap inputs rather than a producer of value-added
goods, thus highlighting mercantilism. Thus, while wartime demand and chrome tanning contributed to short-term
growth, the colonial economy’s structural focus on raw exports and the eventual wartime disruptions (post-1915)
stifled long-term industrial development, leaving India’s leather sector dependent on exploitative trade patterns
until post-independence modernization.

2.4 Theorizing Colonial Exploitation: Tirthankar Roy’s Framework of Peripheral Economies

According to Tirthankar Roy, colonial mercantilism refers to British economic policies in India (1858–1947) that
systematically prioritized resource extraction and export of raw materials (e.g., cotton, hides) to fuel Britain’s
industrialization, while suppressing India’s manufacturing capabilities (Roy 2002). Roy emphasizes how colonial
tariffs, trade laws, and infrastructure (e.g., railways) redirected India’s economy toward agrarian and mineral
exports, stifling indigenous industries like textiles and leatherworking. This created a “peripheral economy” where
India supplied cheap inputs and a captive market for British finished goods, entrenching dependency and
underdevelopment. Roy argues these policies fragmented India’s economic autonomy, leaving postcolonial
challenges in industrialization and equitable growth (Roy 2002).

Under British colonial rule (1858–1947), India’s leather, hides, and skins sector was systematically reconfigured
to serve imperial mercantilist objectives, entrenching economic dependency, deindustrialization, and caste-based
exploitation. Colonial policies prioritized extracting raw materials for British industries while suppressing
indigenous manufacturing, creating a lopsided economic relationship that enriched the metropole at the expense of
India’s socio-economic development.

Following the East India Company’s model, the British Crown institutionalized India’s role as a supplier of raw
hides and skins. By the late 19th century, India emerged as a leading global exporter of untreated hides, with
Calcutta and Madras ports shipping vast quantities to British tanneries (Roy 2002). Colonial authorities imposed
minimal duties on raw exports but levied prohibitive tariffs on finished leather goods entering Britain, ensuring
value-added production remained concentrated in British factories (Prakash 1998). For instance, the Indian Tariff
Act of 1894 slashed duties on raw hides to 5% but imposed a 15% tariff on imported British leather goods, a policy
that paradoxically flooded Indian markets with cheaper foreign products while stifling local industries (Roy 2002).
This extractive framework mirrored mercantilist principles, where colonies were reduced to resource peripheries
to fuel industrial growth in the imperial core.

India’s pre-colonial leather economy, characterized by artisanal tanneries and caste-based craftsmanship, faced
deliberate dismantling under British rule. Traditional leatherworkers, predominantly from marginalized castes like
the Chamars, were restricted to low-value tasks such as hide collection and tanning, while British firms
monopolized finishing and manufacturing. Colonial policies like the Forest Acts restricted access to natural
resources (e.g., tannin-rich bark), crippling artisanal production (Gadgil & Guha 1993). Simultaneously, British
manufacturers lobbied for laws like the Excise Duty Act of 1896, which taxed Indian-made leather goods but
exempted imported British products, further eroding local competitiveness (Prakash 1998). By 1900, India’s share
of global leather manufacturing had plummeted, as raw hide exports surged from 2,000 tons in 1858 to

22
over 100,000 tons by 1914 (Roy 2002). This deindustrialization entrenched economic dependency, aligning with
mercantilist goals of monopolizing manufacturing profits.

By 1947, India’s leather sector was characterized by stark underdevelopment. Over 90% of exports comprised raw
hides, while finished goods accounted for less than 5% (Roy 2002). Post-independence efforts to revive the sector
faced challenges rooted in colonial policies: tanneries clustered in ecologically fragile areas like Cawnpore,
perpetuating pollution and health crises (Ahmad 2013). Moreover, caste stigma around leather work persisted,
limiting upward mobility for Dalit communities (Omvedt 1994).

Figs 3 and 4 (depicting the quantity and value of British India’s raw and tanned hides/skins exports from 1875–
1915) highlight colonial mercantilism by revealing the prioritization of raw material extraction over local value
addition. Raw hides/skins dominated exports by volume (Fig 3), while tanned goods, though higher in per-unit
value (Fig 4), remained marginal. This disparity reflects British policies suppressing India’s tanning industries to
secure cheap UK manufacturing inputs and monopolize profits. The dominance of raw exports underscores India’s
role as a resource periphery, reinforcing dependency and underdevelopment—a hallmark of colonial
mercantilism.

Between 1858 and 1947, colonial mercantilism transformed India’s leather economy into an extractive appendage
of British industrial capitalism. By prioritizing raw material exports, stifling indigenous industry, and exploiting
caste hierarchies, British policies entrenched poverty and underdevelopment. The sector’s postcolonial struggles
—environmental degradation, caste discrimination, and reliance on low-value exports—are direct legacies of this
mercantilist exploitation. As historian Tirthankar Roy (2002) argues, colonial India’s leather sector became a
“peripheral economy,” designed not for self-sufficiency but to serve imperial profit.

2.5 Long-term Impacts of Colonial Policies

The Indian leather industry’s historical trajectory reflects a complex interplay of cultural traditions, colonial
economic policies, and technological advancements. Unlike global counterparts, India’s reliance on fallen animals
for hide production was shaped by cultural restrictions on slaughter, reinforcing existing caste-based labor
divisions. The colonial period further entrenched these hierarchies, as British industrialists capitalized on
marginalized labor while stifling indigenous technological progress to maintain control over raw material exports.

Despite early modernization efforts, such as Alfred Chatterton’s chrome tanning initiative in Madras, colonial
economic interests limited the widespread adoption of industrial techniques, prioritizing the export of raw hides
over value-added manufacturing. The resistance from British tanners in Cawnpore against local chrome tanning
innovations underscores this tension, illustrating how colonial capitalism favored metropolitan industries at the
expense of Indian industrial self-sufficiency.

Technological innovations, particularly chrome tanning, eventually reshaped the industry by accelerating
production and improving leather quality. However, the industry’s structural dependence on caste labour and
export-oriented policies persisted, delaying broader economic transformation. The expansion of railways and
municipal slaughterhouses facilitated access to hides of higher quality, but the colonial trade system continued to
extract wealth from India without fostering local industrial independence.

23
The chapter highlights how the leather industry became both a site of industrial progress and a mechanism for
sustaining colonial economic and social hierarchies. The persistence of these patterns well into the twentieth
century demonstrates the long-term impact of colonial economic structures on India’s industrial development.
While independence opened new possibilities for modernization, the legacy of colonial policies continued to shape
the trajectory of the leather industry in the post-colonial period.

24
Chapter-3 Chrome Tanning, Colonial Exploitation, and the Unprocessed Export Economy

3.1 Introduction: Colonial Economic Strategy and the Leather Industry

The leather industry in colonial India emerged as a critical node of imperial economic strategy, shaped by military
demands, technological shifts, and global capitalist networks. Between 1850 and 1940, the twin hubs of Cawnpore
(Kanpur) and Madras became laboratories of colonial industrialization, where chrome tanning and mechanization
redefined production, labour, and trade. This chapter argues that colonial policies prioritized imperial interests
over local development, transforming India into a supplier of raw materials while marginalizing traditional
artisanal communities. Through a synthesis of trade records, employment data, and industrial reports, this chapter
traces the socio-economic fissures created by colonial modernization.

During World War II, the Cawnpore leather industry, with chrome tanning at its core, underwent rapid
industrialization and international investment to satisfy military demand (Bhargava 2022). After the 1857
Rebellion, the colonial state sought to secure reliable supply chains for its armed forces, particularly as India
became a staging ground for imperial campaigns across Asia and Africa. Leather, essential for boots, saddles, and
harnesses, emerged as a critical commodity.

From the 1870s to the Great Depression (1930), tanning of hides and skins remained a major export (Roy 2000).
By the 1930s, chrome tanning—a rapid, chemical-based process—had replaced traditional vegetable tanning in
Cawnpore, aligning production with the urgency of World War II demands. However, this “modernization” came
at a cost: India became the world’s largest exporter of raw hides while importing finished leather goods, a
dependency starkly captured in the 1930 Hide Cess Report, which noted that 80% of hides left Indian shores
untanned.

The towns of Cawnpore and Madras had specific advantages in terms of raw material availability. Cawnpore, since
its occupation in 1801, housed a cantonment. The local chamars at that time supplied the troops with the necessary
articles, gradually adapting quality by observing the British products. When the mutiny demonstrated the need for
army supply bases close to areas of potential trouble, Cawnpore was chosen as the site for a government harness
and saddlery factory in 1867. The idea was implemented by a young artillery officer J.Stewart. The first workers
were English soldiers with experience in tanneries. The first hides came from ‘commissariat cattle’, cattle serving
the English officers’ need for meat. In 1880, a north Indian managing agency started Cooper Allen, shortly to
become the source for the entire army’s boots, shoes, and saddlery. The town was close to Agra, Aligarh, Delhi,
and Meerut, each of which had a meat trade and therefore local slaughtering. Aligarh was known for having the
best buffalo in India. The railways integrated Cawnpore with Bihar, Punjab, and Central Provinces, the triangular
tract that yielded India’s best cattle hides from ‘Darbhanga’ to ‘Multani’. Forests were within easy reach (Roy
1999, 176).

Similarly, Pallavaram, a suburb of Madras, and Ambur, about 110 miles west, witnessed a spectacular growth of
factories shortly before and during the First World War. The region enjoyed proximity to one of the best vegetable
tannins in India, the avaram bark. However, tanning did not attract private enterprise on a large scale until the
legendary efforts of a French Eurasian of Pondicherry, Charles de Susa, who discovered the best way of utilizing
the bark. Of the major vegetable tannins in India, it had the highest tannin percentage, but was not

25
always used to its full potential. Until the middle of the 19th century, avaram bark tanning tended to produce skins
that, on exposure to air, suffered a ‘fawn red discolouration’ which was previously one of the distinguishing
features of country-tanned leathers. De Susa could avoid this effect by treating the leather in a myrobalan bath
subsequent to tanning. From when his factory at Pondicherry was at work, in the 1840s, a tanning industry began
near Madras. Avaram was generally acknowledged to be superior to the north Indian tannin, but its best use was in
skins and not in hides.

The Madras industry, therefore, specialized in skins. An added factor in this choice might have been the relative
regional advantages regarding livestock. The south lay in goats and sheep, animals more adaptable to drier and
drought-prone regions than cattle, which thrive on rich grasslands (Roy 1999, 177).

3.2 Tanneries: Industrial Hubs of Imperial Modernization

If we consider the distribution of tanneries across regions in Colonial India, we can observe that Madras dominated
tannery activity, reflecting its prominence in leather production.

Table 3: Number of Tanneries by Region in Colonial India (1888–89)

No. of Tanneries States

30 Madras

11 Sind

3 Calcutta

2 Cawnpore

2 Banglore

Source: Review of the Inland trade of India for 1888-89

The 15 principal tanneries employed an average daily number of 2,224 men, of which the “Boot Factory” in
Cawnpore employed 1,388. The Madras Presidency stood out as the leading center with 30 tanneries, followed by
Sind with 11, while Calcutta, Cawnpore, and Bangalore had only two to three tanneries each. This regional
variation reflects the concentration of leather-processing activities in certain areas, likely influenced by access to
raw materials, labour, and trade routes. Despite having only two tanneries, Cawnpore played a significant role due
to the presence of the large-scale “Boot Factory,” which alone employed 1,388 workers—more than 60% of the
total workforce employed by the 15 principal tanneries, which together averaged 2,224 men daily.
The industry’s economic impact was notable, with the total estimated value of its output reaching ₹24,09,845
(O’Connor 1890).

The number of tanneries in India rose from 13 in 1901 to 66 in 1939, doubling the number of labourers working in
them. 1919 was an exceptionally good year. However, thereafter, the factory sector shrank somewhat, partly due to
the bankruptcy of some wartime concerns and partly due to the enforcement of the Factories Act in 1934.
According to the 1921 census on employment in leather, factories employed 5% of the population in the United

26
Provinces and 4% of tanning workers in Madras (Roy, Traditional Industry in the Economy of Colonial India).

27
This data underscores the labour-intensive nature of tanning and its importance to the colonial economy, especially
in supplying goods for military use and export. The development of industrial hubs like Cawnpore also reflects
broader colonial economic strategies aimed at maximizing resource extraction and manufacturing within India.

India had become a huge supplier of raw hides and skins to England, continental Europe, and the USA since the
latter half of the 19th century. By the early decades of the last century, trade had shifted from England to
continental Europe, with the emergence of Hamburg as the most direct channel for the trade of hides and skins.
The Indian market exported 25 to 50% of hides as either dry, salted, or air-dried and arsenicated, collected from
Northern India and exported through the Calcutta port. Germany had emerged as the largest market for Indian
skins. The share of trade for different forms of skins was 6:4:1, with the respective share of raw skins exported,
tanned in the country, and then exported, and those tanned finally consumed in the country (Report of the Hide
Cess Inquiry Committee 1930).

By analyzing the coasting trade networks and principal ports responsible for exporting raw hides and skins, we can
evaluate their significance in the global trade market during colonial times, as evidenced by the data presented in
the table below:

Table 4: Coasting Trade of Raw Hides and Skins (1886-87)

Port Imports (cwt.) Exports (cwt.) Notes

Calcutta 40,637 47,671 Principal imports: raw hides from other Presidency
ports
Madras 55,598 48,450 Included 17,353 cwt. of raw skins from Bengal for
tanning

Bombay 33,274 4,441 26,422 cwt. of imports were raw skins from Sindh

Sindh 1,032 25,089 Major exports: raw skins to Bombay

Burma 3,765 7,525 Not specified

Source: Watt, George. 1890. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of India. Calcutta: Government Printing.

The table above provides insight into the movement of raw hides and skins between key colonial Indian ports.
Madras emerged as a major importer (55,598 cwt.) and exporter (48,450 cwt.), with a notable volume (17,353
cwt.) of raw skins arriving from Bengal specifically for tanning, suggesting a strong local tanning industry.
Calcutta also played a central role, receiving 40,637 cwt. and exporting 47,671 cwt., primarily acting as a
redistribution hub for raw hides from other presidencies. Bombay imported significant quantities (33,274 cwt.),
particularly from Sindh, but exported far less (4,441 cwt.), indicating it was more of a processing or consumption
center. Sindh, in contrast, functioned mainly as an exporter (25,089 cwt.), especially to Bombay.
Calcutta and Madras handled 55–60% of exports, funneling raw materials to Europe while retaining minimal
processing domestically.

28
Burma showed moderate levels of both imports and exports, but without specific details on origin or destination.
Overall, the data reflect a well-integrated coastal trade network in raw hides and skins, with ports like Madras and
Calcutta serving as processing and trading hubs, while regions like Sindh acted as primary suppliers within the
colonial economy.
Thus, by the third decade of the last century, India remained a large market for raw hides and skins and could not
harness the raw material to its full potential.

Fig 5: Number of Tanneries in Colonial India (1888-89)

Source: Review of the Inland trade of India for 1888-89

During the colonial era, India occupied a pivotal yet subordinate position in the global trade of raw hides and skins,
shaped by extractive colonial policies. The United Kingdom dominated India’s hide exports, reflecting its role as
the colonial power that systematically channeled raw materials to fuel its industrial needs. British demand for
leather, which was critical for footwear, military equipment, and machinery belts during the Industrial Revolution
, drove the extraction of Indian hides, which were shipped to British tanneries and factories. Smaller but significant
shares of exports to Italy, Austria, and Germany further integrated India into Europe’s leather-processing supply
chains, as these nations imported raw hides to support their growing manufacturing sectors. However, India’s
participation in global trade was confined to supplying unprocessed hides, a consequence of colonial economic
strategies that suppressed local industrialization and prioritized resource extraction over value addition.

Despite India’s adoption of chrome tanning—a significant technological advancement in leather processing
between 1904 and 1909—this innovation failed to meaningfully boost its hide exports to foreign markets. As
evidenced by the bar chart, exports to the four principal destinations (the United Kingdom, Italy, Austria, and
Germany) remained stagnant or showed negligible growth after 1904. This paradox can be attributed to colonial
economic structures: while chrome tanning revolutionized global leather production, India’s colonial status

29
restricted its ability to capitalize on the technology. European powers, particularly Britain, maintained control over
trade networks and prioritized the extraction of raw hides over supporting value-added industries in India.
Furthermore, advanced tanning infrastructure and expertise remained concentrated in European tanneries, which
continued to import raw Indian hides for processing rather than finished leather.

3.3 Chrome Tanning and the Paradox of Colonial Export Dependency

Fig 6: Effect of chrome tanning on total Exports of Hides & Skins

Source: Growth of Trade and Industry in Modern India: An introductory survey by C.N. Vakil (1931)

The graph illustrates the export trend of hides and skins from 1860–61 to 1929–30, measured in crores of rupees,
highlighting the transformative impact of chrome tanning technology. Exports increased gradually from
₹0.662 crore in 1860–61 to ₹11.48 crores by 1900–01, followed by a slight dip in 1901–02 to ₹8.23 crores. The
period between 1902 and 1913 has been taken as the base time frame for introducing and establishing chrome
tanning in India, marked in the graph by a red dotted vertical line at 1913–14. During this base period, exports
began to recover significantly, reaching ₹16 crores in 1913–14. Following this, exports surged dramatically to ₹36
crores in 1919–20, reflecting the enhanced value and global competitiveness of Indian leather products due to
chrome tanning. Although there was a sharp decline in 1920–21—possibly due to post-war economic disruptions
—exports partially rebounded in the following years.

Except during the war period and two years following it, exports showed unbroken growth. This is due to a steady
growth in the supply, accompanied by an increasing demand from continental countries of Europe and the USA.
From 1913-14, Chrome tanning factories had already been set up in Indian provinces.

30
(e.g., Madras and Cawnpore). However, there is a steep decline in the trend after 1919, possibly due to the post-
WWI global recession reducing demand. Also, this supports the argument that chrome tanning did not accelerate
India’s global export trade.

In the pre-war period, the exporters of raw kips were firms from outside the British Empire. The export figures
have been shown below from 1912-13 and 1913-14:

Table 5: Export of raw kips from India

Top Exporters 1912-13 1913-14

cwt % € % cwt % € %

United 85,076 4.2 137,051 3 14,919 2 62,819 2

Kingdom
Germany 865,07 44 1,692,67 43 356,19 47. 1,903,12 4
6 6 5 9 6 8
Austria- 43,620 13. 542,634 14 141,53 19 763,430 1
Hungary 7 7 9

Source: Report of the Hides Cess Enquiry Committee (1929-30)

Germany and Austria had a share of 58%. The United Kingdom had a negligible share of 3-4%. America, Italy,
Spain, and other continental countries took the remaining 36%. It is evident from the preceding statement that
before the war, the raw Indian kips were chiefly utilized by Germany and Austria. England’s share was particularly
nominal in pre-war times (Report of the Hides Cess Enquiry Committee (1929-30), 56)
However, England not only became the primary destination for Indian hides during the war, but India was the
major supplier of hides to the British army. Nearly two-thirds of leather uppers for army boots came from East
India kips.
The table illustrates India’s export dynamics of raw kips (unprocessed hides) during 1912–13 and 1913–14,
revealing stark contrasts in colonial trade relationships. Germany emerged as the dominant importer, accounting
for 44% of volume (865,076 cwt.) and 43% of value (€1,692,676) in 1912–13, rising to 47.9% (356,195 cwt.) and
48% (€1,903,126) by 1913–14. This surge reflects Germany’s growing industrial demand for raw materials to fuel
its leather and manufacturing sectors, likely intensified by pre-WWI economic expansion. Austria-Hungary also
expanded its share significantly, from 13.7% (43,620 cwt) and 14% (€542,634) to 19% in both volume (141,537
cwt) and value (€763,430), underscoring Central Europe’s increasing reliance on colonial resources. In stark
contrast, the United Kingdom—India’s colonial ruler—saw its share plummet from a modest 4.2% (85,076 cwt)
and 3% (€137,051) in 1912–13 to a mere 2% in both categories (14,919 cwt, €62,819) by 1913–14. Crucially, the
data confirms India’s role as a supplier of raw materials, with no evidence of value-added exports like chrome-
tanned leather, despite the technology’s introduction in the early 1900s. This underscores colonial policies that
suppressed local industrialization, ensuring India remained dependent on exporting unprocessed goods to benefit
European industries.

31
We can observe the export of raw hides from the time period (1880-1930) from the graphs below.

Fig 6: Trend of Export of Raw Hides (1880-1930)

Source: Vakil, C. N. Growth of Trade and Industry in Modern India: An Introductory Survey

Fig 7: Trend of Export of Tanned Hides (1880-1930)

Source: Vakil, C. N. Growth of Trade and Industry in Modern India: An Introductory Survey

32
India’s position as an exporter of hides between 1880 and 1930 reflects a complex interplay of colonial economic
policies, technological shifts, and global market dynamics. Initially, raw hide exports dominated, peaking at ₹830
lakhs in 1880–81, but this sector saw sharp declines by 1913–14 (₹161 lakhs), followed by partial recoveries in the
1920s. Tanned hide exports began at a similarly high level (₹788 lakhs in 1880–81) but experienced a steeper and
more prolonged downturn, particularly after 1913–14, with only a brief resurgence in 1919–20. Introducing
chrome tanning could have positioned India as a competitive exporter of value-added tanned products.

However, the stagnation and eventual decline of tanned hide exports after 1920 suggest limited domestic adoption
of this technology. Instead, raw hides remained a significant export, underscoring India’s role as a supplier of
unprocessed materials under British colonial rule. Colonial policies prioritized resource extraction to feed imperial
industries, disincentivizing investments in local tanning infrastructure and perpetuating reliance on raw material
exports. External factors, such as World War I, further disrupted trade, exacerbating declines in tanned hide
exports (e.g., ₹304 lakhs in 1917–18) and highlighting vulnerabilities in global demand. Despite technological
advancements abroad, India’s export economy remained tethered to raw hides, a pattern emblematic of colonial-
era dependency, where colonies were relegated to primary goods production while industrialized centers
monopolized value-added processing.

This trajectory underscores how colonial structures stifled industrial growth, ensuring India’s subordination within
global trade hierarchies. Raw hides demonstrated greater resilience than tanned hides, which declined more
steeply and failed to recover post-1920. This divergence highlights how colonial structures locked India into a
subordinate role, exporting raw materials while advanced processing remained concentrated in industrialized
nations.

3.4 Economic Valuation and Colonial Extraction: Profits vs. Poverty

33
Valuation of products in 1913-14:
Table 3: Valuation of products in 1913-14

Name Value in rupees remarks

1. Hides and Skins 4,00,00,000 Assuming that exports constitute 80% of the
total production.

2. Manures 1,18,00,000 Assuming that exports constitute 80% of the

total production.
3. Wool 3,11,00,000 Assuming that exports constitute 80% of the
total production.
4. Silk 30,90,000 Assuming that exports constitute 80% of the
5. Poultry products 25,00,000 total production.
6. Fisheries 5,94,68,750 At four annas per head for 275 days for
865,000 persons.
7. Valuation of products
worked by artisans and
earnings of labourers At four annas per head per day for 310 days
engaged in trade and 139,50,00,000 for 18,000,000 persons.
transport. —-------------------
154,29,58,750

Source: The wealth of India by P.A Wadia and G.N. Joshi

The 15 largest tanneries generated ₹24 lakh annually, yet workers earned subsistence wages. Hides and skins are
valued at ₹4 crore, the third-highest among listed products after artisan/labourer-driven sectors ( ₹139.5 crore) and
fisheries (₹5.94 crore).
The remark states that 80% of total production was exported, implying hides/skins were a critical raw material for
exports for colonial trade. While hides/skins rank below fisheries and artisan sectors in value, their ₹4 crore
valuation surpasses wool (₹3.11 crore) and far exceeds silk (₹30.9 lakh) or poultry (₹25 lakh). This underscores
their relative importance in the raw material economy.

The table shows hides/skins generated ₹4 crore in value, with 80% exported (₹3.2 crore). However, colonial trade
was designed to extract raw materials cheaply for imperial industries, not to benefit local economies. Profits
flowed to British traders and industries, while Indian laborers were relegated to low-wage roles in production and
transport.
The total valuation of ₹154.29 crore includes ₹139.5 crore from “products worked by artisans and labourers”.
However, this aggregate figure masks individual earnings. For example, fisheries ( ₹5.94 crore) and hides/skins
(₹4 crore) relied on labor-intensive processes (e.g., skinning, curing, transport), but the remark calculates wages at
four annas per day (a pittance even by early 20th-century standards). This institutionalized poverty ensured
laborers could not share in the sector’s export wealth.

34
3.5 Caste Hierarchies and Mercantilist Exploitation

Table 4: Employment in Leather, 1901–1931

Source: Roy, Tirthankar. Traditional Industry in the Economy of Colonial India.

Caste hierarchies, regional disparities, and exploitative colonial policies profoundly shaped the leather industry in
colonial India (1901–1931). Workforce trends reveal stark contrasts: regions like Madras and Bengal experienced
significant declines in male leather workers—Madras dropped from 170,000 workers in 1901 to 113,000 by 1931,
while Bengal’s workforce halved from 71,000 to 32,000, likely due to economic disruptions or shifts in colonial
demand. In contrast, Punjab maintained relative stability, with numbers hovering around 215,000 despite data
gaps, suggesting sustained artisanal activity or local demand for leather goods. The industry’s labor structure was
inextricably tied to caste oppression, with marginalized groups like the Chamar, Mochi, Malinga, and Chakkiliyan
systematically relegated to leather work—a stigmatized occupation under caste norms. For instance, in Bengal,
25–32% of Chamar and Mochi communities remained entrenched in traditional roles, while Punjab’s Mochi
artisans saw their specialization surge from 66% to 72%, reflecting

35
demand for skilled craftsmanship. Colonial priorities exacerbated these dynamics, focusing on raw material
extraction (e.g., hides/skins for export) and low-value products like footwear, while neglecting higher-value goods
such as leather containers. This extractive model relied on underpaid labour, with workers earning meager wages
(e.g., four annas per day), as profits flowed to British industries.

This can be exemplified by the concept of colonial mercantilism, which intersected with India’s caste system to
institutionalize the exploitation of Dalit communities. British administrators codified caste roles, legally binding
Dalits to “polluting” leather work while excluding them from landownership and education (Omvedt 1994). The
colonial state profited from this caste-based division, as it ensured a steady supply of cheap labour for hide
processing. For example, in Madras Presidency, Dalit labourers in tanneries received wages 50% lower than non-
Dalit workers, a disparity sanctioned by colonial labour laws (Gupta 2001). This systemic marginalization allowed
British firms to minimize production costs while suppressing labour unrest.

Data limitations—missing entries, repetitive listings (e.g., Madras appearing twice), and a narrow focus on male
workers—further obscure the industry’s complexity, masking women’s roles and regional nuances. Ultimately,
the colonial leather industry epitomized systemic exploitation: caste hierarchies provided a captive workforce,
while imperial policies ensured India remained a supplier of raw materials, stifling industrialization and
perpetuating economic inequity.

3.6 Conclusion: Industrial “Progress” and Enduring Dependency

The leather industry in colonial India (1850–1940) epitomized the contradictions of imperial economic strategy: a
sector transformed by technological modernization yet shackled by extractive colonial policies. The twin hubs of
Cawnpore and Madras emerged as focal points of industrialization, driven by military demands and global
capitalist networks. Chrome tanning, introduced in the early 20th century, revolutionized production, enabling
India to meet wartime needs and compete in global markets. Yet, this “modernization” masked a deeper
exploitation. Colonial policies systematically prioritized raw material extraction over value addition, ensuring
India remained a supplier of untanned hides and skins to European industries while importing finished leather
goods. By 1930, 80% of hides left Indian shores unprocessed, a stark testament to the colonial economy’s
subordination to imperial interests.

The industry’s labor structure further underscored colonial inequities. Marginalized castes like the Chamar,
Mochi, Madiga, and Chakkiliyan were confined to stigmatized, low-wage roles, their labor sustaining an export
economy that enriched British traders while offering them subsistence wages (e.g., four annas per day). Regional
disparities—declining workforce numbers in Madras and Bengal versus Punjab’s artisanal resilience—reflected
the uneven impact of colonial policies, which dismantled traditional industries in some regions while exploiting
caste hierarchies to maintain production in others.

Global trade dynamics reinforced India’s dependency. Germany and Austria-Hungary dominated pre-war imports
of raw hides, while post-war Britain monopolized demand for military supplies. Despite India’s adoption of
chrome tanning, colonial trade networks ensured that profits from value-added processing accrued overseas. The
surge in raw hide exports (e.g., ₹830 lakhs in 1880–81) contrasted sharply with the stagnation of tanned leather,
revealing a deliberate suppression of local industrialization.

Ultimately, the colonial leather industry was a microcosm of broader imperial exploitation: technological
advancements served imperial needs, caste hierarchies provided a captive workforce, and economic policies

36
entrenched India’s role as a primary goods supplier. This legacy of extraction stifled industrial growth, perpetuated
social inequities, and cemented India’s subordinate position in global trade hierarchies—a pattern that endured
long after independence. The chapter thus illuminates how colonial modernity, far from fostering development,
entrenched dependency, leaving a paradoxical legacy of industrial “progress” built on systemic exploitation.

37
CHAPTER 4: Colonial Modernity and Its Discontents: Mechanization, Exploitation, and the Paradox of
Progress in India’s Leather Industry (1857–1947)

The leather industry in colonial India, spanning from 1857 to 1947, serves as a lens through which the
contradictions of imperial modernity are laid bare. While technological advancements like chrome tanning and
mechanization ostensibly modernized production, colonial policies ensured that these innovations served imperial
interests rather than fostering local industrialization. This chapter synthesizes evidence from three decades of
research to argue that mechanization, though transformative, was subsumed within a colonial framework that
prioritized resource extraction, entrenched caste hierarchies, and perpetuated economic dependency. Far from
catalyzing equitable growth, mechanization became a tool of exploitation, amplifying India’s role as a supplier of
raw materials while stifling its industrial potential.

4.1 Mechanization and Its Limited Impact

The introduction of chrome tanning in the early 20th century marked a watershed moment in leather production.
Traditional vegetable tanning, reliant on organic agents like avaram bark and myrobalan nuts, was labor-intensive,
requiring 30–50 days to produce leather of inferior quality (Roy 1994). Chrome tanning, by contrast, reduced
processing time to mere days and yielded leather that was water-resistant, elastic, and globally competitive.
Factories in Cawnpore and Madras adopted machinery for tasks like hide shaving, chemical treatment, and boot
manufacturing, streamlining workflows and increasing output. For instance, Cooper Allen & Co.’s Cawnpore
tannery employed specialized machines for finishing leather, while Madras’s Government Chrome Tannery
utilized elevated tan-pits to optimize drainage and reduce contamination (Sharma 2005; Bhattacharya 2018).

However, mechanization’s impact was constrained by colonial economic priorities. British firms and
administrators resisted the widespread adoption of chrome tanning to protect European industries. The Madras
Chamber of Commerce, backed by Cawnpore’s British tanners, lobbied against Alfred Chatterton’s pioneering
chrome tanning experiments in Madras, fearing competition with imported European leather (Tayabji 1997).
Colonial tariffs further skewed the playing field: the 1894 Indian Tariff Act imposed a 15% duty on finished Indian
leather goods but only 5% on raw hides, flooding local markets with cheaper British products while incentivizing
raw material exports (Roy 2002). Consequently, by 1930, 80% of Indian hides were exported unprocessed, while
finished leather imports surged (Hide Cess Report 1930). Mechanization thus became a double-edged sword ,
boosting productivity but reinforcing dependency.

4.2 Caste and Labor: The Human Cost of Industrialization

The leather industry’s mechanization was inextricable from caste exploitation. Marginalized communities like the
Chamars (North India) and Chakkiliyans (South India), historically relegated to “polluting” leather work, formed
the backbone of the industrial workforce. In Madras, 58% of tannery workers in 1921 belonged to the Chakkiliyan
caste, while Punjab’s Mochi artisans saw 72% of their community entrenched in leatherwork by 1931 (Table 4,
Roy 1994). These workers endured grueling conditions: handling toxic chromium-6 solutions without protective
gear, laboring in malodorous tanneries, and earning subsistence wages of four annas per day—half the pay of non-
Dalit workers (Gupta 2001).

Colonial policies codified caste roles to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor. The Forest Acts restricted access to
tannin-rich babool and avaram bark, crippling artisanal tanneries and forcing traditional workers into factory jobs

38
(Gadgil & Guha 1993). Even in mechanized settings, caste stigma persisted. The “red stain” from vegetable
tannins, once a marker of artisanal identity, was replaced by the chemical burns and respiratory ailments endemic
to chrome tanning, yet social ostracization remained unchanged (Kapoor 2021). Mechanization, rather than
liberating workers, entrenched their marginalization.

4.3 Trade Dynamics: Raw Materials for Imperial Growth

Under colonialism, India’s integration into global trade networks transformed it into a resource periphery. Ports
like Calcutta and Madras funneled raw hides to Europe, where British and German tanneries monopolized value-
added production. Between 1875 and 1915, raw hides constituted 75–80% of India’s leather exports by volume,
peaking at 1.8 million cwts during World War I (Figs 3–4, Indian Munitions Board 1919). Though higher in value,
Chrome-tanned leather accounted for less than 5% of exports by 1947 (Roy 2002).

This extractive trade was engineered through mercantilist policies. Germany and Austria-Hungary dominated pre-
war imports, sourcing 58% of India’s raw kips for their booming leather industries (Table 2, Hides Cess Enquiry
Committee 1930). Britain monopolized military supplies post-war, with two-thirds of leather uppers for army
boots sourced from Indian hides. However, India remained excluded from profits: finished leather goods like
Cooper Allen’s “Fux” boots were re-imported at inflated prices, while colonial tariffs stifled local manufacturing.
The railways, often hailed as symbols of progress, primarily expedited raw material extraction, linking hinterland
slaughterhouses to coastal ports rather than fostering domestic industry (Roy 1994).

4.4 Environmental Degradation: The Hidden Toll of Industrialization

Mechanization’s environmental costs were profound. In Madras, tanneries dumped chromium-laden effluents into
the Palar River, poisoning farmland and rendering the riverbed barren. By the mid-20th century, the Palar had
dried up, displacing agrarian communities and creating a public health crisis (Thilakavathy 2021). Similarly,
Cawnpore’s tanneries, clustered near military cantonments, contaminated the groundwater, but colonial
administrators turned a blind eye to prioritize production. The reliance on “fallen” hides—86.7% of kips and
87.2% of buffalo hides from carcasses—further degraded leather quality, as starved or diseased animals yielded
inferior raw materials (Agricultural Marketing Report 1952). In its pursuit of efficiency, colonial modernity
externalized ecological costs, leaving post-independence India to grapple with irreversible damage.

4.5 Conclusion: Mechanization as a Colonial Paradox

The mechanization of India’s leather industry under British rule epitomizes the paradox of colonial modernity.
While chrome tanning and factory production represented technological progress, they were harnessed not for
development but for extraction. Mechanization amplified productivity, yet colonial policies ensured that profits
flowed overseas, raw materials dominated exports, and caste hierarchies ossified. The industry’s growth was not a
testament to progress but a manifestation of exploitation—ecological degradation, systemic poverty, and social
stigma were its true legacies.

Post-independence, these patterns persisted. Tanneries remained clustered in ecologically fragile areas, Dalit
communities continued to dominate leatherwork under exploitative conditions, and India struggled to shift from
raw exports to value-added production. The colonial leather industry thus stands as a cautionary tale: technological
advancement, when yoked to imperial exploitation, entrenches dependency rather than fostering liberation.
Mechanization, in this context, was not a driver of progress but a tool of subordination, revealing the hollowness of
colonial claims to modernity.
39
 References

1. Ahmad, N. Labour, Law, and Empire: Colonial India and the Global Leather Trade. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
2. Bhargava, Prakrati. Modernization of Leather Industry and Chequered History of Technical Education
in Colonial Kanpur. Delhi: DELETED, 2022.
3. Bhattacharya, Shahana. Technological Shifts in Colonial Tanning. New Delhi: Academic Press, 2018.
4. Bhattacharya, Shahana. “Transforming Skin, Changing Caste: Technical Education in Leather Production
in India, 1900–1950.” The Indian Economic & Social History Review 55, no. 3 (2018): 307–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019464618778411.
5. Cavaco-Paulo, Artur, and Isabel Carvalho. Leather Production: Tanning, Dyeing, and Finishing. 1st ed.
New York: Springer, 2012.
6. Chatterjee, A.C. Notes on the Industries of the United Provinces. Allahabad: Superintendent Government
Press, 1908.
7. Cooper Allen & Co. Footprints on the Sands of Time: An Epic Relating to Industrial Effort in the Second
World War. Kanpur: Cooper Allen & Co., 1943.
8. Damodaran, Sumangala, Pallavi Mansingh, and Centre for Education and Communication. Leather
Industry in India. New Delhi: Centre for Education and Communication, 2008. https://www.cec-
india.org/libpdf/1437550410LeatherIndustryinIndia.pdf.
9. Das, B. M. Report of the Panel on Leather and Leather Goods. New Delhi: Government of India, 1947.
10. Federation of British Industries. The Resources of the Empire, a Business Man’s Survey of the Empire’s
Resources. London: E. Benn, 1924.
11. Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
12. Government of India. Agricultural Marketing in India: Report on Marketing of Hides in India and
Burma. New Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1943.
13. Government of India. Report of the Hide Cess Inquiry Committee. New Delhi: Government of India
Press, 1930.
14. Government of India, Ministry of Industry & Supply. Report of the Panel on Leather and Leather
Goods. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Industry & Supply, 1947.
15. Gupta, Rupa. Caste and Wages in Colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
16. Indian Legislature. The Factories Act, 1934. New Delhi: Government of India, 1934.
17. J, H. S., C. N. Vakil, and P. V. Deolalkar. “Growth of Trade and Industry in Modern India.” Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society 95, no. 4 (1932): 731. https://doi.org/10.2307/2342053.
18. Kapoor, Anish. Leather and Colonial Modernity. London: Routledge, 2021.
19. Kapoor, Smriti. “The Smell of Caste: Leatherwork and Scientific Knowledge in Colonial India.” South
Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 44, no. 5 (2021): 983–999.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2021.1969728.
20. Omvedt, Gail. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in Colonial
India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1994.
21. O’Connor, Mr. Statistical Tables for British India, 1888–89. Calcutta: Government of India, 1890.
22. Prakash, Om. European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-Colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998.

40
23. Roy, Tirthankar. Economic History of India, 1857–1947. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
24. Roy, Tirthankar. Traditional Industry in the Economy of Colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999.
25. Roy, Tirthankar. “Foreign Trade and the Artisans in Colonial India: A Study of Leather.” The Indian
Economic & Social History Review 31, no. 4 (1994): 461–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001946469403100402.
26. Sahasranaman, A. Occupational Safety and Health in the Tanning Industry in South East Asia. Vienna:
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 2000.
27. Sharma, Monica. The Emergence of Leather Industry in Cawnpore (1861–1947). New Delhi: Manak
Publications, 2005.
28. Sharma, M. Workers and Leather Industry in Kanpur (1861–1947): Transition from Craft to Factory
Production. PhD dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2003.
29. The Wealth of India. New Delhi: Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, 1957.
30. Thilakavathy, M., and R.K. Maya, eds. Facets of Contemporary History. Chennai: Ethiraj College for
Women, 2019.
31. Tyabji, Nasir. Colonialism, Chemical Technology and Industry in Southern India. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997.
32. Watt, George. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of India. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government
Printing, 1890.

41