Give a brief account of Daniel Thorner’s critique of the Nationalist thesis on de-industrialization.

Daniel Thorner was an influential economic historian who offered a critique of the Nationalist thesis on de-industrialization in colonial India. The Nationalist thesis, popularized by Indian nationalist historians like R.C. Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji, argued that British colonial policies deliberately caused the decline of India's traditional handicraft industries, leading to economic devastation and poverty. Thorner's critique provided a nuanced perspective on this narrative, emphasizing the complexity of economic changes in colonial India.

Thorner's critique of the Nationalist thesis can be summarized as follows:

1. Role of Market Forces: Thorner argued that the decline of India's traditional industries was not solely due to deliberate British policies, but rather was influenced by broader market forces and economic transformations. He highlighted how changes in global trade patterns, emergence of new technologies, and shifts in consumer preferences played significant roles in shaping India's economic landscape.

2. Economic Rationality of Indian Producers: Contrary to the Nationalist view, Thorner emphasized the agency and economic rationality of Indian producers and merchants. He argued that Indian artisans and entrepreneurs responded strategically to changing market conditions, adapting their production methods and products to remain competitive. Thorner believed that blaming colonial policies alone for de-industrialization oversimplified the complex realities of economic change.

3. Limited Market for Handicrafts: Thorner pointed out that the traditional handicraft industries in India faced challenges due to limited domestic and international markets. As industrialization advanced in Europe, demand for machine-made goods increased, making it difficult for Indian handmade products to compete. Additionally, Thorner highlighted how Indian artisans often lacked access to credit, technology, and infrastructure needed to modernize their production methods.

4. Regional Variations in Economic Change: Thorner emphasized the importance of recognizing regional variations in economic development within colonial India. He argued that the impact of colonial policies and economic changes varied across different regions, with some areas experiencing industrial growth while others faced decline. Thorner's research highlighted the complexities of local economies and the diverse responses of Indian communities to colonial transformations.

5. Role of State Policies: While Thorner acknowledged that British colonial policies had economic implications, he cautioned against attributing all economic changes to deliberate colonial designs. He emphasized the need to examine the unintended consequences of policies, as well as the interactions between state interventions and broader economic dynamics.

Overall, Daniel Thorner's critique of the Nationalist thesis on de-industrialization challenged prevailing nationalist interpretations of colonial economic history in India. He emphasized the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of economic changes, acknowledging the complexities of market forces, regional variations, and indigenous economic agency. Thorner's work contributed to broader debates in economic history, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and empirical research in studying colonial economies. While his views did not discount the negative impact of colonialism, they underscored the need to analyze historical phenomena within a broader analytical framework that considers multiple factors shaping economic outcomes.