Introduction

“There is no argument that carries greater persuasion with it in favour of a country’s ideals and way of life than its art, richly documenting the past culture of India, had a unique position in this respect, revealing the mind of the Indian people.”²

Indian handicrafts have been revered as an important part of the rich Indian cultural heritage. Anglo-Indians, South Asians and the British opted for many ventures and chose many venues to promote Indian traditional art around the turn of the twentieth century. The British rule in India resulted in the British documenting and producing the know knowledge about the land of the ruled. One such official way of documenting the land of the ruled was through imperial exhibitions.

It was the discovery of India’s living tradition of craftsmanship and decorative design that had assigned India its place of pride in the course of world fairs and international exhibitions. Tapati Guha-Thakurta points out that as the interest in products and manufactures of the British Empire increased, colonial India offered itself as a great “unexploited” or untapped source of riches. It also recovered for the English industry and design a locale for both commerce and art (“art” implying the newly valued genre of the decorative arts such as handicrafts, paintings, woodwork, glasswork). Thus, on one hand, a determined effort to improve the quality of English industrial design and, on the other, a nostalgic impetus to revive the dying “pre-industrial” traditions of craftsmanship of India, made the decorative arts a focal point of commercial and aesthetic interest in colonial India.

Thus, exhibitions that were being organised by the British in India from second half of nineteenth century functioned as a tool for the British to legitimize their imperial supremacy on global scale in terms of culture and artistic tradition of India. The legitimization of imperial supremacy was exercised under the guise of preserving and promoting indigenous art and craft. Exhibitions represented not only the aesthetics of Oriental art, which was categorised and seen as indigenous, but also complemented the indigenous art and widened the audience both in Britain and India for traditional Indian art. The representation of intellectual and social order through exhibition was a way of celebrating the imperial commercial wealth and triumph.

The paper, in particular, analyses the Punjab Exhibition of 1881 against the backdrop of the inceptionary movement of exhibitions initiated by the colonial state in British India. Interestingly, the purpose of the imperial authority to organise exhibitions, such as the Punjab Exhibition, lay at expanding the British and European markets for the Indian handicrafts industry; it happened simultaneously with the economic critique of colonialism by the Indian nationalists in the form of ‘de-industrialisation’.³ The paper by studying Punjab Exhibition of 1881 argues that though the British took to organising exhibitions to promote and preserve Indian arts and textile, but in reality, it was a disguise aimed at establishing sovereignty over the colonised and maintain a hierarchical relationship of aesthetic and traditional culture between the ruler and the ruled.

Backdrop to the Exhibition Culture in Colonial India

During the 1880s, efforts were made to universally preserve the traditional Indian handicraft and art.⁴ Oriental exhibitions intensified throughout the nineteenth century and, simultaneously represented and created a taste for Oriental products among the British elite. The demand for Oriental products, i.e., ‘old and traditional style’ of craftsmanship in indigenous arts and crafts was emphasized upon by the British rule in order to revive and encourage the old Indian tradition of manufacturing the handicrafts. The rich embroideries, intricate carvings, inlays, and craftsmanship, which has been growing in this ancient land of “intellect and taste,”⁵ were displayed and exhibited at colonial exhibitions in the countryside of India and at international exhibitions. Thus, India was represented in all the major exhibitions, a process, which continues till today. The initiative to promote and preserve what was considered indigenous arts and products was controlled by colonial state and colonial demand eventually expanded the umbrella of products to be exhibited and promoted.

Indian things of everyday use were displaced from their ordinary context and were valued in a different approach from its past. However, any kind of imitation by Indian works-men of oriental art was not acknowledged by the exhibition organisers. What was demanded and preserved was the “old original and traditional style of ornament in woodcarving, in weaving, in embroidery, in jewelry, and, in fact, in every form of native art and manufacture.”⁶ India, as Thakurta points out, emerged as an exotic “pre-industrial entity” against the modern industrial nations and their advances, as Indian artefacts for the first time transcended the curiosity of the modern industrial nations and stood out as a superior example of industrial arts and decorative design on an international platform. India was celebrated at the exhibitions for its restored past, as the exhibition authorities wrapped their venture in a rhetoric of Indian art and the nation.⁷

Borrowing from Benedict Anderson’s argument of the nation as being “an imagined political community,” that is, one that is “imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign,”⁸ the idea of contemporary society and its history was represented by British elites and commissioners of the exhibition. This was achieved as the exhibits on display were transformed into imperial and national relics. Thus, the idea of cultural federation implicit through exhibitions across the British Empire gave it continuity, accessibility and a language for ideas of imperial federation and commonwealth.⁹ As H. G. Clarke rightly puts it, “Like every act or event which occurs in the life of men and nations, the Exhibition is the index or reflex of an opinion, or idea.”¹⁰

In order to understand exhibitions in wider historical context and dynamic trajectories, Hoffenberg views exhibitions as part of self-conscious adaptation to fluid national and imperial identities. For him, exhibitions shaped the cultural and social order within the borders and across the Empire, that is, in the larger transnational system of the British Empire. Thus, exhibitions were organised with the intention to promote external commonwealth and “internal nationalism.” Thus, the exhibitions, as Hoffenberg puts it, were a site of “interactive cultural system circulating men and women, ideas and material between and within the Empire’s political units, thereby producing the lasting and sometimes paradoxical ideas and culture of both the Commonwealth and colonial nationalism.” Furthermore, the exhibition emerged as a site of intellectual, economic and cultural “intercourse” which tied India together with Britain by promoting new technologies, internal economic development and overseas trade. Exhibitions, consequently, in Hoffenberg’s opinion, served national and imperial purposes.¹¹ Hoffenberg is of opinion that  it is the exhibits of the material culture and the visitor’s experience that represented the imagined relationship between groups across British Empire’s borders and within those specific polities, such as India and England.¹² Anderson’s emphasis on the importance of common reading experience which included mass consumption such as novels and newspaper is extended to the exhibitions as being read as texts by Hoffenberg. These exhibitions also marked out not only the initiated overseas trade with British India but also allowed the European and English visitors to have “a far more accurate knowledge than they would have otherwise possessed” regarding Indian products and resources.¹³ Arguing on the similar lines, Trivedi is of the opinion that “the exhibition’s organisation in itself promoted a map of the nation.” Trivedi further points outs that the exhibitions communicated a sense of “Indian” geography by carving new national spaces of colonial India.¹⁴ Thus, the exhibitions helped mark geo-political breadth and cultural depth of a country. Following Trivedi and Hoffenberg, the following section will shed light on how the Punjab Exhibition of 1881 reinstated the mapping of ‘geo-body’ of the nation. This was possible as the beauty of saleable oriental designs of the craftsperson of Punjab were considered capable of producing the most beautiful oriental products. The only difficulty was to get producer and purchaser in direct contact so as to ensure increasing production without compromising the quality. This difficulty was overcome through imperial exhibitions.¹⁵

Representing India through the works of village artisans, Hoffenberg points out that India’s economic exhibits created cultural, historical and racial views vis-à-vis Australian colonies. In opinion, Alexander Hunter, the Director of Madras School of Art and Industry, found the exhibits to be “costly and ornamental articles of luxury.”¹⁶ They were thus seen as best suited to “requirements of the wealthy, or the pomp and display of Native Durbars.” Alexander Hunter concluded that India’s commissioners should exhibit items “suited to the requirements of the middle and lower classes… (and) likely to be in demand to any extent amongst the European Population.”¹⁷

Thus, it is implicit that indigenous products not only got appreciated by the imperial officials but also redefined the European households as they were used as decorative articles in form of durries, carpets, etc. However, the acceptance of Indian goods in European household and market was not without rejection and disapproval by some. Given that British manufactures were jealous of the popularity that Indian textiles enjoyed, there were methods to curb the growing popularity of Indian textiles. This was marked by sudden change in dress fashion and replacement of light cotton textiles by coarse woolens of the English. Daniel Defoe, writer of famous novel, Robinson Crusoe, complained that Indian cloth had “crept into our houses, our closets and bed chambers; curtains, cushions, chairs, and at last beds themselves were nothing but calicos or India stuffs.”¹⁸

The Punjab Exhibition of 1881

Much of the existing historiography of Punjab looks only at political, regional and communal tension of the region. A serious neglect in the historiography of Punjab is that the representation of Punjab’s art and culture in these exhibitions has not been discussed at all. Although Punjab was primarily an agricultural state, the exhibition of 1881 emphasised on the arts and culture of the region.

One such major exhibition was the Punjab Exhibition of 1881, opened by Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, Sir Robert Eyles Egerton on 24th December 1881. The objective of the Exhibition the report stated was, “to test the progress that has been made in quality and technical excellence of manufactures in last 17 years; second to encourage and reward the production of genuine native work, designed and carried out in indigenous styles of construction and ornamentation; …we do not wish to see Indian workmen forsaking the beautiful patterns of Oriental carpet; …what is wanted is to elicit the old original and traditional styles in every form of native art and manufacture.”¹⁹

Thus, the purpose of the exhibition was to promote, revive and preserve the genuine native work and art traditions of the province. Promoting oriental designs of new forms and uses, the Punjab Exhibition encouraged and rewarded the production of genuine native work which was carried out in indigenous style of construction and ornamentation which was regulated by the colonial state. The purpose of social good of exhibition was complemented by having educational influence of a provincial collection which would consequently evoke talent and cultivate development and flexibility of traditional skill. That is to say, the British in their effort for preservation of the indigenous art, selected only those indigenous arts and crafts to be exhibited or displayed which according to them reflected traditional style of craftsmanship.

The colonial regulation in controlling what was to be considered traditional Indian handicraft was reinforced in the comments made by the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab by pointing out to the limitation of the Jury Report for being unable to address the issue of progress made from the last exhibition of 1864. The Lieutenant Governor regretted that comparison between articles exhibited in 1864 and 1881 was not done. He argued that though praise was given to every article in exhibition which gave a general impression of improvement, it was not stated if instructions were given to the Jury by the General Committee regarding word of praise and improvement of articles. In case of any future exhibition, he requested the Juries to record the improvement in articles. With a central and a local committee formed to carry out the arrangements for the objects to be exhibited, Nawabs, Maharajas and officials, who aided the exhibition by collecting or lending the specimen, and all others who were engaged in carrying out the exhibition in some way or the other, were mentioned and acknowledged with vote of thanks in committee address. J. B. Lyall, the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab, in his address acknowledged the declining condition of the arts of Punjab under the dual influence of cheap import and competition, and an increasing tendency to copy the European designs. Thus, the exhibition was aimed to make the production of Punjab known widely.²⁰

The Punjab Exhibition of 1881 further reinstated the significance of the native art, as native art, however, open to adaption to a range of European requirements of fashion and improved by polishing the style, but the material and ornament had to be quintessentially native. While some officials have reported of ‘delight’ to produce copies of European style by the native workmen, the main objective of the exhibition remained unchanged, that is, to encourage and promote the indigenous native art. To make the exhibit more attractive, raw materials and models were exhibited. Along with the many exhibitions organised in British India, it was also proposed to hold a Retrospective Exhibition alongside the Punjab Exhibition of 1881. It would be to present selected best old objects contributed on loans. These objects could be carpets, embroideries, jewelry, metal work, etc. But for these special objects, certain terms and conditions were applied as well. For example, their safety, display of contributors’ names next to each exhibit, no article of the exhibit could be transferred or gifted.²¹

One of the major characteristic features of 1881 Exhibition was its educational impact. J. B. Lyall points out that an increased commercial demand for native goods had an educational impact as well. This was achieved in form of learning and encouraging the literature “indigenous to the soil and congenial to the people,” and by establishing schools of industrial art to revive the skill of artistic technique. Encouraging objects of good oriental taste, old indigenous specimens of art were procured on loans by the respective owners. For the same purpose industrialist school such as the Mayo School of Art was established by the Government in 1875-76. It was aimed at giving instructions in drawing and designing artefacts of oriental taste rather than in ‘mechanical’ work. Although some attention was given to the latter in accordance with the requests of first promoters of the school, the actual necessities of the craftsmen of the province were not neglected. Besides this school, there were four other industrial schools for males and one school for females at Delhi.²²

William Hunter recommended that ‘native’ methods of arithmetic, accounts, science and industrial arts should be integrated into a new government curriculum. As seen in Calcutta, technical education became a priority for mining, manufacturing and other industrial enterprises and new modes of urban commerce grew under the British Raj. As Allender points out, these ideas were encouraged a generation earlier by the Great Exhibition of 1851 and thus allowed the edge over European rivals in the new age of free trade. But by 1880s, there was also the hope that technical education would expand the commercial job market and offer relief from a shortage of government jobs for school graduates.²³

Reflecting upon the index of the society, exhibitions in Hoffenberg’s opinion also altered the society and, in some cases, it was “the society.”²⁴ This was reflected from the special category of exhibits of the Punjab Exhibition of 1881, which included jail manufacturers. Not allowed to compete with articles made by what was termed as “free labour,” the jail exhibits, however, got a boost in the form of separate prize for its manufactures. What is surprising to note is that jail convicts were turned into workmen under the Jail Superintendent producing beautiful carpets. If at all the Superintendent would have thought of trade, he would have made huge profits. The condition of free workmen who worked industriously, however, was not as favorable as he was often a bond slave of middle men.²⁵

At the local level, as the Anglo-Indians and art experts joined the ambitious project of exhibition committees, they publicised their own scientific essays and art projects, introduced European consumer goods, and struggled to establish “national Indian markets” and trade networks.²⁶ This effort to establish “national Indian market” was further corroborated by Mr. Kipling in his review of the Jury Report where he observed that the purchases at the Punjab Exhibition of 1881 contradicted the assertions that Industrial arts of India were decaying. Mr. Kipling made note of the impetus that carpet trade received, promising not to replace the Jail carpets or articles. A quick trade had emerged in Phulkari (handwoven textile of Punjab), which, initially limited to local wear, was now being exported as well.²⁷ The commercialisation of indigenous products through exhibitions also questions the impact of de-industrialisation on Indian handloom and handicraft sectors. As such, the uniformity of de-industrialisation amongst the indigenous industries also needs to be critically examined. For example, the Juries Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881, talks of the progress made in cotton manufactures, jail carpets and embroideries such as popular Phulkaris. However, in categories of woolen clothes, jewelry and metal work not much advancement had been made.²⁸ Offering a political, social and economic federation before the participants, exhibitions helped create the ideas of Great Britain, India and its colonies. Political, economic and social hierarchies were reinterpreted as exhibitions acted as a stage for contested reconciliation for groups which had racial similarity. Bringing production process and industrial process into the highlight and linking them with artistic and consumer items, a self-sufficient economic image of a community was presented. Thus, at times, as Hoffenberg puts it, these exhibitions celebrated national or colonial economic ambitions as much, if not more than imperial ones.²⁹ This is especially true in context of Punjab Exhibition of 1881. As J. B. Lyall pointed out, limiting the articles to be exhibited to indigenous arts and industries and not including the raw products of the province, it added a domestic character to the whole project. Oriental in style and design, the articles had mark of individuality bestowed upon by the labour only.³⁰

Success of any project or initiative is incomplete without its market reach or commercial value. The economic display of exhibitions created an imperial market for social groups which participated as producers and consumers. The exhibitions then not only created but also revealed public politics and social meanings of economic goals as artefacts and signs. They, thus, represented the economic roles of the Empire’s racial or national types. Therefore, the market was the empire and the empire was the market. The commentaries on exhibition provided information of direct consumption. This was reinstated by the Lieutenant Governor’s review of the Jury Report on the Punjab Exhibition 1881, that the objective of the exhibition to encourage native work of oriental design was achieved. He further noted attention of public (locals) being drawn to indigenous industries especially in case of embroideries, inlay work and wood carving.³¹ The expert judgements of the jurors were tested by the visitor, as men and women both observed and participated in exhibition of economic goods. The exhibitions thus showed, what Hoffenberg says, advantages of the open, public, free market and drew – “a direct connection between the two parties” involved in commercial transactions. The view is reinforced by Hoffenberg who is of opinion that exhibitions allowed producers and consumers to compare the goods and other economic strength of participating countries.³² Thus, exhibitions offered an inventory upon which to base commercial decisions. The Indian courts at colonial and Indian exhibitions offered silks, jewelry, wood carving, and embroideries. Punjab Exhibition of 1881 had a vast rich range of 11 classes and more than four thousand articles. Importance of place of trade or manufacture of the district was pointed out by number of classes in which each district exhibited. These exhibits included cotton textiles, woolen and silk textiles, embroideries, leather work, metal, pottery, glass, wood work and design. It is the categories of woolen textiles, silk textiles and of embroideries which caught attention of this study. In woolen textiles, cheaper style of shawl weaving has been revived to serve the purpose of hangings and curtains. For example, Jamawar’s were successfully adapted as curtains. Woolen carpets, too, from areas of expertise such as Hoshiarpur, Mooltan got to compete as a separate sub-class. The prizes however were given only to carpets original in oriental style.³³

The commercial aspect of exhibition was given further impetus by fixing tickets of a single season at Rs. 5 and family tickets at Rs. 10. On the other hand, admission fee was fixed at Re 1 for first week, 4 annas for second week, 2 annas for third week and 1anna for first week. The business made of the exhibition, however, was quite a handsome amount of Rs. 19,000. However, the artisans were allowed free access and on a daily average 61 persons entered on these tickets. Apart from artisans, press officials and office clerks were admitted free by special arrangements. From leading towns, 121 selected artisans were sent with their expenses borne by the local committee to see the exhibition. They were led through the exhibition by the Honorary Secretary and by the students of School of Art. The monthly attendance of 28 days of exhibition was 332, while only Sunday was allotted for visit by “native women.” ³⁴

The purpose of this restrictive entry for indigenous women is not very clear, leaving it open for open questions like: were women of particular class and caste restricted? Was their restriction on the intermingling of women of various caste and classes? Why were women allowed to such public places only on Sundays? Or was it just another tool to practice regulated segregation?

The Indian display, according to Dr. Whewell, was suggestive of the fact that arts were exercised to gratify the taste of the British elite rather than supply the demands of mass society in India.³⁵ This was highlighted from the exhibits of the Punjab exhibition 1881 which pointed to the disappointment of craftsperson in Indian handicraft. It was caused due to the fact that many of the most choice and prize-able articles were not regularly produced but were toure de force which craftsperson could not afford to repeat. Receiving praise for creation of the article under a feudal system is hardly considered or seen as survival, as this practice was still in trend in native courts. Mr. Kipling asserted that it might be contended that some of the best qualities of Indian craftsmanship were due to conditions which utilitarian trader found impracticable. To cater to the problem, it was suggested to make exhibitions a permanent institution as it would allow keeping selected articles with labelled prices which public could purchase. Though government and its officials encouraged trade, it was ruled out that it was not a sound policy to interfere in private enterprise.³⁶

In the Punjab Exhibition 1881, it was the class of embroideries which was considered to have represented native taste par excellence. Varying from fabric of wear to hangings, from screen covers to furniture covering, the class of embroidery was adapted both by Europeans and the natives. Embroideries on cotton, silk, wool, velvet from Kashmir, Hissar, Delhi, Lahore had a ‘quaint style’ varying in purpose for use such as curtains, door purdahs. Use of thin silvered glass or gold thread (zari work) gave it the indigenous character. Cheap embroidery in silk thread on cotton, commonly known as nila or kharwa, was much in use by women as chaddars. The embroideries made on cloth, merino, satin and net were exhibited too. Most of them were ordinary kind, neither representing special excellence nor novelty. However special mention is made to an old splendid work of embroidery, Jhul,³⁷ which was one of its kinds in the whole Exhibition and had been sent by Manik Chand of Delhi. Jail carpets got a special mention too from the Honorary Secretary under the category of carpet manufactures. Region which specifically attracted attention was the Hazra region (now in Pakistan) which sent admirable specimens of silver, ‘phulkari’ and baskets. Aiming to provide encouragement to art and manufacturers, evoke the talent and revive what is good to prevent it from decaying, the exhibition had some prominent contributors like Maharaja of Kashmir, Maharaja of Patiala, Raja Harbans Singh of Lahore, Nawab of Maler Kotla, Mr. Lockwood de Forest of New York to name a few. The loaned articles for the exhibition by the Maharajas and Nawab’s added to the luxurious aspect of the exhibition.³⁸ This effort of the elite in exhibition in Hoffenberg’s opinion anticipated the creation of public space which imaged a peaceful social order and grandeur of the imperial rule. The elites then sustained the imperial ideology by seeing in exhibitions “cultural bonds,” which “mediated imperial identities” of colonial officials in the empire. Consequently, the fragile political links of metropole were culturally unified.³⁹

Any use of gaudy and violent color was discouraged, and only the harmonious good coloring and traditional designs were rewarded. The whole purpose of the exhibition and the prizes was to provide encouragement to art and manufactures, and evoke labour talent, and revive decaying good work and get commercial encouragement. Efforts were made to document the products of the exhibition in form of catalogue. However, the inability to complete it in time was a result of failure of printing office, late arrival of many goods without any kind of list, and the “smallness of our establishment.”

Another unique section of the Punjab Exhibition of 1881 was the work send by Mayo School of Art, Lahore. The exhibits of this section were considered superior to anything in Exhibition in context of application of ornamenting in national and oriental style and excellence of craftsmanship. While the Gesso ornamentation was much admired, among the new methods of modelling papier-mâché was excellently exhibited, as it adapted the erosion of their saltpetre laden walls. Two side boards exhibiting qualities of construction and design, bit of inlay work, hanging, shelves, folding screen used as decorative figure object were much admired for the novelty of their ideas, taste and simplicity of execution. The exhibition also had a plan to decorate panels of cloth which could be used as an ornament and as a means of brightening dressing rooms of usually dull and uninteresting rooms in Indian houses. Thus, what began as oriental effort to understand the rule, turned out to be an anglicised project to improve the Indian public taste in indigenous arts and crafts as per British standards. As for prizes to be given, it was left to principal of the school to award prizes to pupils that he thought should be given, as all the articles of were praiseworthy and the Jury could not decide in what proportions to give the award and to whom. The principal could also reward any good article which might missed the eye of the Jury.⁴⁰

Commenting on the success of the exhibits of Mayo School, H.R. Mehta said, “The Exhibitions of Arts and Manufactures held in its grounds in its ground in 1881, was a great success and gave some impetus to the institution, which was in quite a flourishing condition at the close of our period, with sixty-two scholars on the rolls.” ⁴¹

Conclusion

The Punjab exhibition of 1881 not only romanticised the oriental art, but also created a space for oriental art to emerge. Practicing selective preservation and promotion of indigenous art through the exhibition, the British revived certain taste/class of Indianness. “It is very much to be desired that, with a view of reviving old traditions, good specimens of carpets, shawls, old embroideries will be valuable in encouraging and establishing really good Oriental taste,”⁴² thus, allowing standardised taste of traditional design and craft for British and Indian masses to be established. The British rule undertook the task of exhibiting heritage of colonial India to assert their social, political and economic claims on a global scale. This led to the establishment of imperial nexus of visual display organising exhibitions which displayed material culture often in different context from their original purpose. Through exhibitions and in particular the Punjab Exhibition of 1881, the colonial state asserted their claim to ‘sustainability’ of the items manufactured in India. That is to say, the colonial state claimed that the exhibition would revive the Indian economy. Through the medium of colonial exhibitions, the colonial state thus continued to exercise the power to regulate the display and sale of Indian items abroad. The exhibition of 1881, by its organisation and content, served to showcase selective arts, artefacts and crafts of India. It also showed how the handicraft became embodiment of power, nation, memory and heritage through politics of representation, regulation and control which produced different trajectories of meanings and identities.

References

1. The idea of taste is uniform throughout the paper. By promoting traditional Indian products excelling in craftsmanship, the British catered to the taste of British gentry and European markets and aimed to raise the Indian public taste by standardizing it to their taste.
2. Exhibition of Indian Art held at the Government House, New Delhi, November 6-December 31, 1948, quoted by Guha-Thakurta, T., Monuments, Objects and Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Post-Colonial India, Columbia University Press, New York, 2004, p. 175, (emphasis mine).
3. The economic plight of the handicraft gave origin to the economic ideas of Indian leadership which was led by Dadabhai Naroji who was soon to be followed by brilliant economic ideas of prominent individuals like Gokhale, M.G. Ranade, G.V. Joshi, R.C. Dutt, G.S. Iyer. Realizing the nature of British policies of development of Indian economy, the nationalists demanded fundamental changes in existing economic relation between India and Britain which would cut at the very roots of colonialism. One such demand of Indian leadership was the state assistance of indigenous industry without promotion of state policy of industrial enterprise. However, the most accepted and advocated method to encourage the traditional Indian industries and check growing poverty of India was the idea of swadeshi. Swadeshi movement stood for encouragement for use of Indian made manufactures while rejecting/boycotting foreign goods. As the tide of swadeshi rose many people advocated and practised swadeshi so as to save the native artisans and handicraftsmen from ruin at hands of foreign goods.
4. For example, traditional craft carried out by use of hands and not machine such as ornament in woodcarving, weaving, embroidery, etc.\
5. Evelyn, Stuart M., East Indian Art Handicraft, Fine Arts Journal, 35(6), 1917, p. 406.
   CrossRef
6. Punjab (India) Secretariat, Selections from the Records of the Government of Punjab and its Dependencies: Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882, Punjab Government Secretariat Press, Lahore, 1883.
7. Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects and Histories, p. 49.
8. Anderson, B., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, New York, 1991, p. 6, cited in Hoffenberg, P., An Empire on Display: English, Indian and Australian Exhibitions from the Crystal Palace to the Great War, University of California, Berkeley, 2001, p. 2.
9. Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p.p. 21-22.
10. Clarke, H. G., The Crystal Palace, and the Great Exhibition: An Historical Account of the Building, together with a Descriptive Synopsis of its Content. London, 1851, p. 15, cited in Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p. 22.
11. Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p.p. xiv-xv, 5.
12. Ibid, p.p. xiv-xv.
13. Ibid, p.p.  xviii-3.
14. Trivedi, L., Visually Mapping the “Nation”: Swadeshi Politics in Nationalist India, 1920-1930, The Journal of Asian Studies, 62(1), 2003, p.34.
    CrossRef
15. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
16. Hunter, A., Suggestions for the Establishment of a School of Industrial Arts at Lahore, Prepared at the Request of His Excellency, Sir Robert Montgomery, K.C.B., Lieut.-Governor of the Punjab. Oriental and India Office Collections, 1863, p. 35, cited in Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p. 25.
17. Hunter, Suggestions for the Establishment of a School of Industrial Arts at Lahore, p. 25.
18. Chandra, B., History of Modern India, Orient Black Swan, New Delhi, 2015, p. 91.
19. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Mehta, H. R., A History of the Growth and Development of Western Education in the Punjab: 1846-1884, Languages Department, Punjab, Patiala, 1971, p. 79.
23. Allender, T., Ruling through Education: The Politics of Schooling in the Colonial Punjab, New Dawn Press, New Delhi, 2006, p.p. 264-265.
24. Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p.p. xviii, 3.
25. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
26. Nagpore Exhibition, Report of the Nagpore Exhibition of Arts, Manufactures and Produce, Central Provinces Printing Press, Nagpur, 1865, p.p. 21-28.
27. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
28. Ibid.
29. Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p.p. 21-22.
30. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
31. Ibid.
32. Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p.p. 23-24.
33. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
34. Ibid.
35. Dr. Whewell, General Bearing of the Great Exhibition on the progress of Art and Science. In Lectures on the Progress of Arts and Science, Resulting from the Great Exhibition in London, Delivered before the Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, at the Suggestion of H.R.H. Prince Albert, A. S. Barnes, New York, 1854, p.p. 3-25, cited in Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display, p. 25.
36. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
37. Jhul is a carpet-like large rectangular covering used to drape the elephant’s back. It cannot be tied down, since it hangs down on both sides of the animal. This ‘trapping’ is vernacularly referred to as jhul, is derived from the archaic Marathi prakrit word, meaning ‘body cloth of horse/elephant.
38. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
39. Choi, S., An Empire on Display: English, Indian and Australian Exhibitions from the Crystal Palace to the Great War. Journal of World History, 14(3), 2003, p.p. 416-417.
    CrossRef
40. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882.
41. Mehta, Western Education in the Punjab, p. 79.
42. Report of Punjab Exhibition 1881-1882