The truth behind tech revolutions

It may be time to rewrite history

- AJIT BALAKRISHNAN

One of the enduring mysteries in my life has been trying to understand why the Industrial Revolution, which started in England in the mid-18th century and introduced spinning and weaving machines, did not first happen in India. After all, India was producing most of the world's cotton thread and cloth at that time. Whenever I ask this, I get the answer: "Indian labour costs were so low that nobody needed to invent machines to spin or weave."

The term "Industrial Revolution" was popularised by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee in an 1882 lecture at Oxford University to describe how the use of spinning and weaving machines transformed England—they brought about a shift from the "domestic system" of production, where work was done in homes or small workshops, to the new "factory system", driven by machinery and organised for mass production. He used the word "revolution" because he saw the changes being as profound, rapid, and disruptive to society as a significant political revolution. In other words, he stated that it was not just the use of machines but rather a fundamental restructuring of the economy, society, and human relationships that qualified to be a "revolution".

I wish I had been there in the audience to stand up and say: "Great marketing of Britain, Mr Toynbee!"

And before you wonder why I am so rebellious, dear reader, here are some facts.