<P> Even as late as 1772, Henry Patullo, in the course of his comments on the economic resources of Bengal, could claim confidently that the demand for Indian textiles could never reduce, since no other nation could equal or rival it in quality . However, by the early nineteenth century, the beginning of a long history of decline of textile exports is observed . </P> <P> A commonly cited legend is that in the early 19th century, the East India Company (EIC), had cut off the hands of hundreds of weavers in Bengal in order to destroy the indigenous weaving industry in favour of British textile imports (some anecdotal accounts say the thumbs of the weavers of Dacca were removed). However this is generally considered to be a myth, originating from William Bolts' 1772 account where he alleges that a number of silk spinners had cut off their own thumbs in protest at poor working conditions . </P> <P> Several historians have suggested that that the lack of industrialization was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels, arguing that wages were high in Britain so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour - saving technologies, and that wages levels were low in India so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology . Several economic historians have criticized this argument, such as Prasannan Parthasarathi who pointed to earnings data that show real wages in 18th - century Bengal and Mysore were higher than in Britain . Workers in the textile industry, for example, earned more in Bengal and Mysore than they did in Britain, while agricultural labour in Britain had to work longer hours to earn the same amount as in Mysore . According to evidence cited by the economic historians Immanuel Wallerstein, Irfan Habib, Percival Spear, and Ashok Desai, per - capita agricultural output and standards of consumption in 17th - century Mughal India was higher than in 17th - century Europe and early 20th - century British India . </P> <P> British control of trade, and exports of cheap Manchester cotton are cited as significant factors, though Indian textiles had still maintained a competitive price advantage compared to British textiles until the 19th century . Several historians point to the colonization of India as a major factor in both India's deindustrialization and Britain's Industrial Revolution . British colonization forced open the large Indian market to British goods, which could be sold in India without any tariffs or duties, compared to local Indian producers who were heavily taxed . In Britain protectionist policies such as bans and high tariffs were implemented to restrict Indian textiles from being sold there, whereas raw cotton was imported from India without tariffs to British factories which manufactured textiles . British economic policies gave them a monopoly over India's large market and raw materials such as cotton . India served as both a significant supplier of raw goods to British manufacturers and a large captive market for British manufactured goods . </P>

2 primary products of india during british raj