Shipbuilding and Shipping

CHAPTER VI

SHIPBUILDING AND SHIPPING

Conditions in Former Times. Considering that India has a seaboard of more than 4000 miles and that except in the north, the north-western, and the north-eastern corners of the peninsula, the only outlets to the outside world are by sea, there is no wonder that for thousands of years before the advent of the British, India should have developed shipping and maritime trade to a marvellous extent. There is ample justification for the claim made for her by one of the Indian writers on the subject, that “the early growth of her shipping and shipbuilding, coupled with the genius and energy of her merchants, the skill and daring of her seamen, the enterprise of her colonists, . . . secured to India the command of the sea for ages and helped her to attain and long maintain her proud position as the mistress of the Eastern Seas.”

The claim has been made good in an excellent brochure written by Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji of Calcutta, and published by Messrs. Longmans, Green and Co. of London. The work is called, “A History of Indian Shipping and Maritime Activity from the Earliest Times.” The evidence collected in this volume is both indigenous and foreign and goes back to about 3000 years B.C. Dr. Sayce, the famous Assyriologist, has been quoted in support of the statement that commerce by sea between India and Babylon must have been carried on as early as about 3000 B. C. One remarkable feature of the foreign evidence collected by Professor Mookerji is that it establishes beyond doubt that for ages before the British period, India was a great manufacturing country known for the excellence of her fabrics and that as a rule she was principally an exporter of manufactured articles, importing only gold and silver and other precious metals. As early as the first century A. D. this flow of gold into India was the cause of alarm to Pliny, who deplored the “drain” from the Roman Empire to the Orient in exchange for articles of luxury.¹ There is abundant testimony of Greek and Mohammedan historians, of Chinese and other foreign travellers as to ships of war forming a regular and significant feature of the offensive and defensive equipment of Indian rulers. A Board of Admiralty was one of the six Boards which made up the War Office of Chandra Gupta, the Hindu Emperor of India, who reigned from 321 B. C. to 297 B. C. Coming to the time of Akbar, the great Mogul who was a contemporary of Elizabeth in the sixteenth century, we find elaborate details for the upkeep of the Admiralty given in the monumental work of Abul Fazal, known as the Ayeen-i-Akbari (the laws of Akbar). Akbar’s Admiralty, we find in the Ayeen-i-Akbari, looked to the supply and building of ships. Bengal, Cashmeer and Thatta in Sindh were famous for their shipbuilding industry, though ships were built nearly everywhere on the banks of navigable rivers or on seaboard. The organisation of a ship given in the Ayeen-i-Akbari, is sure to be of interest to modern readers and we therefore make no excuse for making the following lengthy extract from Professor’s Mookerji’s book.

“The second duty of Akbar’s Admiralty was regarding the supply of men, of efficient mariners who knew the nature of tides, the depths of channels, the coasts to be avoided, and the character of the prevailing winds. Every ship required officers and men of the following titles and descriptions: (1) The Nakhoda, or commander of vessel, who directed the course of the ship; (2) the Maullim (the mate), who knew the soundings, the situation of the stars, and guided the ship safe to her destination; (3) the Tundeil, who was the chief of the khelasses or sailors; (4) the Nakhodakhesheb, whose duty it was to provide fuel for the people and assist in lading and unlading the ship; (5) the Sirheng, who had to superintend the docking and launching of the ship; (6) the Bhandaree, who had charge of the ship’s store; (7) the Keranee, or ship’s clerk, who kept the accounts and also served out water to the people; (8) the Sukangeer, or helmsman, of whom there were sometimes twenty in a ship; (9) the Punjeree, whose duty it was to look out from the top of the mast and give notice when he saw land or a ship, or discovered a storm rising, or any other object worth observing; (10) the Goomtee, or those particular khelasses who threw the water out of the ship; (11) the gunners, who differed in number according to the size of the ship; (12) the Kherwah, or common seamen who were employed in setting and furling the sails and in stopping leaks, and in case of the anchor sticking fast in the ground they had to go to the bottom of the water to set it free.”

It might be noted in passing that Akbar was practically a free-trader; the duties on exports and imports never exceeded 2½ per cent.² India could afford to be a free-trader then. She may again become a free-trader under a national government, but the present policy of free-trade followed by a foreign Government is inimical to her industries.

The Venetian traveller Cesare di Fedrici, writing about the year 1565, states that such was the abundance of materials for shipbuilding in the eastern parts of Bengal that the Sultan of Constantinople found it cheaper to have his vessels built here than at Alexandria.³ Even in the early days of the British the shipping industry was in a flourishing condition in India. The East India Company built many of its ships there. A building yard was maintained at Surat, up to 1735, in which year most of the work was transferred to Bombay. The foreman of the Surat shipyard was a Parsee Indian. In 1774 the grandsons of this foreman, Lowjee, built two ships of 900 tons each. Later on in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century in this ship yard and under the supervision of Indian foremen were built nine ships, seven frigates and six smaller vessels for the British Royal navy. In 1802 the British Admiralty ordered men-of-war for the King’s navy to be constructed at Bombay. The master builder was a Parsee. From 1736 to 1837, the position of master-builder was always held by an Indian.

In 1775, a visitor recorded the following observation about the shipyard:

“Here is a dockyard large and well-contrived with all kinds of naval stores . . . and . . . forges for making anchors. It boasts such a dry-dock as is, *perhaps not to be seen in any part of Europe, either for size or convenient situation.*⁴

Lieut.-Col. A. Walker wrote in 1811: “The docks (i.e., those at Bombay) that have recently been constructed are capable of containing vessels of any force.”

As for their quality the same authority said: “It is calculated that every ship in the navy of Great Britain is renewed every twelve years. It is well known that teak-wood built ships last fifty years and upwards. Many ships, Bombay built, after running fourteen or fifteen years have been brought into the navy and were considered as strong as ever. . . . No Europe built Indiaman is capable of going more than six voyages with safety.”

As to their cost the same authority says: “Ships built at Bombay also are executed by a quarter cheaper than in the docks of England, so that the English-built ships requiring to be renewed every twelve years, the expense is quadruple.“⁵

The East India Company maintained several shipyards in Bengal, but gradually Calcutta came to be the centre of the industry.

In 1781 to 1800 inclusive, 35 ships with a total tonnage of 17,020, were built at Calcutta; in 1801, 19 ships of 10,079 tons; in 1813, 21 ships of 10,376 tons. Including the above from 1801 to 1821, both inclusive, there were built on the Hugli 237 ships of 105,653 tons, which, reckoned at an average cost of 200 Rs per ton (£20 then) cost £2,000,000.

Lord Wellesley, the Governor General of India, wrote in 1800:

“ From the quantity of private tonnage now at command in the port of Calcutta, from the state of perfection which the art of shipbuilding has already attained in Bengal (promising a still more rapid progress and supported by abundant and increasing supply of timbers) it is certain that this port will always be able to furnish tonnage to whatever extent may be required for conveying to the Port of London the trade of the private British merchants of Bengal.”

A Frenchman, F. Baltazar Solvyns has recorded the following observation (1811) about Indian ships:

“ In ancient times the Indians excelled in the art of constructing vessels, and the present Hindus can in this respect still offer models to Europe — so much so that the English, attentive to everything which relates to naval architecture, have borrowed from the Hindus many improvements which they have adopted with success to their own shipping. The Indian vessels unite elegance and utility, and are models of fine workmanship.” ⁶

The Decline of the Industry. The decline of the Indian Marine, remarks Mr. Mookerji, began after 1840, no large ships having been built after that date. “ It was finally abolished in April, 1863, shortly after the assumption of the Government of India by the Crown.” ⁷

Reading the despatches of the directors of the East India Company of 1801 it appears that shipbuilding lingered in India for more than half a century against the wishes and inclinations of her masters. In a despatch quoted by Mr. Digby on page 101 of his book one can find “the reasons” against shipbuilding and shipmanning. One of the reasons was that Indian-built ships will have to be manned by Indian sailors which was “undesirable,” “inadvisable” and “unpatriotic.” While shipbuilding was stopped in India only sixty years later, the Europe-built ships running to the East continue to employ Indian sailors to a considerable number, though in the lowest capacities.

The changes represent (a) the destruction of the shipbuilding industry, (b) and the bar to the rank of officers.

“Scarcely anything has struck me more forcibly,” says Mr. Digby, “than the manner in which the Mistress of the Seas in the Western World has stricken to death the Mistress of the Seas in the East.” Statistics from the beginning of the century are not available—to me at least—but from the Statistical Abstracts I gather the following significant facts:

In 1899-1900 the native craft declined to 1776 (109,813 tonnage). The present conditions (1912) may be judged from the following figures taken from Mookerji’s “Conclusion.”

In 1899-1900 the native craft declined to 1776 (109,813 tonnage). The present conditions (1912) may be judged from the following figures taken from Mookerji’s “Conclusion.”

Our oceanic trade represents 11,800,000 tons, our indigenous shipping represents only 95,000 tons or only about .8 per cent. Of the aggregate tonnage of 29.61 million tons in the inter-portal trade, only 3.24 million tons is our own and over 89 per cent foreign. Our na-tional shipping at the present day consists of only 130 vessels of under 80 tons each, used in the oceanic trade and 7280 in the inter-portal trade of the country of un-der 20 tons each. . . . Our shipbuilding is now so con-tracted as to give employment to only 14,321 men, who build only about 125 galbats a year.

As for the status of the Indian sailor, he is after all only a lostan, at best only a Tindal. In 1912-13 the total number of ships (sail and steam) that entered the Indian ports was 4408, with a tonnage of 8,727,627. The number of those that cleared from Indian ports was 4341, with a tonnage of 8,756,764. Of these, Brit-ish Indians were 313 and 296 respectively of 188,977 and 174,286 tonnage; and native craft 823 and 765 re-spectively (tonnage 65,076 and 62,822).

The following figures taken from the Statistical Ab-stract are of interest:

No. 179.— Number and Tonnage of Steam and Sail-ing Vessels which Entered with Cargoes or in Ballast from Foreign Countries, distinguishing Nationalities.

No. 180.— Number and Tonnage of Steam and Sailing Vessels which cleared with Cargoes or in Ballast to Foreign Countries, distinguishing Nationalities.

But even of greater interest are the figures of ships built at Indian ports.

Ships Built at Indian Ports

Ships Built at Indian Ports—Continued

Footnotes

⁴ The History of the Indian Navy, by Lieutenant C. R. Low, L. N., and other authorities, quoted by Mookerji, p. 245.

⁵ Mookerji, pp. 245, 246, 247.