SYLLABUS:
(a) Land revenue settlements in British India; The Permanent Settlement; Ryotwari Settlement;
4. Explain the essential features of the ryotwari system of land revenue with special reference to Thomas Munro’s contribution to its evolution. [1984, 60m] |
7. Discuss the main features of the ‘Raiyatwari Settlement’ in South India. Did it satisfy the aspirations of the peasantry? [2001, 60m] |
14. “Ryotwari falls into three stages – early, middle and late, and the only description common to all is that it is a mode of settlement with small farmers, so small, indeed, that their average holding is, on recent figures, only about 6 ½ acres,” Critically examine. [2013, 10m] |
Mahalwari Settlement; Economic impact of the revenue arrangements; Commercialization of agriculture; Rise of landless agrarian labourers; Impoverishment of the rural society.
9. “So Long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance , I hold every man a traitor who having been educated at their expense, pay not the least need to them.” Comment. [2006, 20m]
(b) Dislocation of traditional trade and commerce; De-industrialisation; Decline of traditional crafts; Drain of wealth; Economic transformation of India;
1.Trace the industrial growth of British India after the First World War. How did the Government’s tariff policy influence the growth? [1983, 60m] |
2. Identify the main features of industrial development in India from 1914 to 1947 with special reference to the emergence of a class of factory laborers. [1989, 60m] |
Railroad and communication network including tele-graph and postal services; European business enterprise and its limitations.
5. “The hey-day of the British power in India was also the high noon of laissez faire’ economic doctrine.” Comment. [1990, 20m] |
12. “Under the forceful thrust of British colonialism, Indian economy was transformed into a colonial one, the structure of which was determined by the requirements of Britain’s fast developing industrial economy.” Examine. [2015, 20m] |
3. Identify the distinct stages of colonialism in India. How did these stages affect the Indian economy? [1991, 60m] |
5. Economic changes in India from the late 1920s influenced the course of the country’s politics. Elucidate. [1995, 60m] |
Famine and poverty in the rural interior;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINS QUESTIONS:
Trace the circumstances that led to the introduction of the Permanent Settlement in Bengal. Discuss its impact on landlords, peasants and the Government. [1981, 60m]
The major concern of EIC’s administration since the days of 1757 was to collect as much revenue as possible. Since agriculture was the main basis of economy and the main source of income, several land revenue experiments were introduced in haste to maximise extraction. Revenue failed on account of devastating famine in 1770. The farming system introduced by Warren Hastings in 1772 gave the revenue collection right to the highest bidder. This failed to improve the situation as revenue farmers tried to extract as much as possible without any concern for the production process. The peasants were burdened and agriculture ruined. Lord Cornwallis was sent to India in 1784 with the mandate to streamline revenue administration.
The lack of information about LR Assessment and collection which is resulting in corruption leading to losses for the EIC. Other systems like Revenue farming, QUINQUINNIAL system were not able to work properly. It was because of this, that Cornwallis introduced Permanent Settlement on recommendations of John Shore.
“The Permanent Settlement of land revenue in Bengal was a‚ bold, brave and wise measure.” Comment. [1983, 20m] [1997, 20m]
“The permanent system of Bengal though initiated with best of best of intentions, was a sadly blundering affairs.” [1993, 20m]
PS had two special features:
the Zamindars and revenue collectors were converted into so many landlords. They were not only to act as agents of the Government in collecting land revenue from the Ryot but also to become the owners of the entire land in their Zamindars.
the Zamindars were to give 10/11th of the rental they derived from the peasantry to the company, keeping only 1/11th for them. But the sums to be paid by them as land revenue were fixed in perpetuity. This was also hoped to minimise company administrator’s tendency to amass fortune.
Perception for very high success of PS / Decision to recognise the Zamindars as the proprietors of land was:
Political (Allies)- The British officials realised that as they were foreigners in India, their rule would be unstable unless they acquired local supporters who would act as a buffer between them and the people of India => Z = loyal class and free the BR from any kind of revolt as Z would deal with LR.
Financial (Security) - Permanent Settlement guaranteed stability of income => free the company from costs of periodic Land Assessment.
Social - Since the land revenue would not be increased in future even if the Zamindars income went up, the latter would be inspired to extend cultivation and improve agricultural productivity as was being done in Britain by its landlords.
Thus, due to these benefits the system was considered as a bold, brave and wise move. However, its consequences were against expectations <discussed in next section>
What was the impact of early British land policy in the village communities of North India? [2003, 60m]
“The poverty of the Indian people was the consequence of the Government’s land revenue and taxation policy.” Discuss this statement with reference to British rule in India in the 19th Century. [1980, 60m]
Show how British rule led to the spread of land-lordism in certain parts of India, and how the, peasant was progressively impoverished under this rule. [1985, 60m]
“A self-sufficient village, based on agriculture carried on with the primitive plough and bullock power, and handicraft by means of simple instruments, was a basic feature of pre-British Indian economy.” Comment. [2006, 20m]
The changing life in Indian village marked best the impact of the British administration on the Indian people. Explain, identifying the process and the extent of the change. [1996, 60m]
“Permanent Settlement disappointed many expectations and introduced there results that were not anticipated.” Comment. [2004, 20m]
“Absentee landlordism was a consequential feature of Bengal’s Permanent land settlement.” Comment. [2003, 20m]
The Permanent Settlement also known as the Cornwallis Code or Permanent Settlement of Bengal was an agreement between the East India Company and Bengali landlords, with far-reaching consequences for both agricultural methods and productivity in the entire Empire and the political realities of the Indian countryside.
The unanticipated Results:
The government tax demand was inflexible and the British East India Company's collectors refused to make allowances for times of drought, flood or other natural disaster. As a result many Zamindars immediately fell into arrears.
SUNSET Laws: Resulted in exploitation of landlords themselves who were evicted from their lands on account of late submission of revenue.
The condition was such that by 1819, more than 68% of landlords lost their land-rights. In some cases there were no bidders for land-revenue collection.
Creation of private land was misnomer as absolute ownership lay with imperial authority.
Many of the new purchasers of the auctioned land (SUNSET law) were Indian officials within the East India Company's government. These bureaucrats were ideally placed to purchase lands (bribery) which they knew to be under assessed, and therefore profitable. They could also manipulate the system to bring to sale land that they specifically wanted.
Permanent Settlement led firstly to a commercialization of land which previously did not exist in Bengal.
Absentee landlordism was a consequential feature of Bengal’s Permanent land settlement. The new landlords were different in their outlook; "often they were absentee landlords who managed their land through managers and who had little attachment to their land".
Subinfeudation* was resorted to by Zamindars which sometimes proliferated up to 12 grades between Zamindar and peasants.
The condition of actual cultivators degraded. Amount was kept very high and whole burden was shifted on peasants.
Peasants were left at the mercy of Zamindars.
Their customary occupancy rights were ignored and they were reduced to status of tenants.
The landlords rack-rented the peasants leaving with them only bare necessities, which ruined agriculture and peasants.
The system of HAPTAN, where land lords removed the tenant farmers from land without any judicial proceedings resulted in reducing tenants to levels of serfs.
Thus, the Permanent Settlement went against the expectations. However, after 1819, the non-serious Z left the field and some kind of normalcy returned to Indian agriculture which continued to exist till the independence of country.
Thus, it was a bold and brave step but it was not a wise move. Perhaps, that's why it was never repeated in other areas.
*Subinfeudation = (in feudal society) the granting of land by a vassal to another man who became his vassal.
“Though the Permanent Settlement had serious defects, it gave tranquility to the countryside and stability to the government.” Comment. [2009, 20m]
Beneath all the changes effected by colonial policies, the power of this class and their control over the rural society remained unaffected and herein lay the basic continuity of the rural social structures in colonial Bengal. There was only unqualified decline of the Zamindars who were losing out to a class of rich peasants (jotedars) who dominated the land market, rural credit and the trading networks.
The Indian Middle Class firmly believed that “Britain had imposed a colonial economy on India which had impoverished the country.” Comment. [1999, 20m]
What changes did Permanent Settlement bring to variety of abwabs in Country?
Abwabs meant all irregular impositions on raiyats above the established assessment of land in the pargana. During nawabi period a variety of abwabs were imposed on Zamindars, who conveniently transferred them on to their raiyats. Under the Regulations of the permanent settlement (1793) – All abwabs were consolidated with rent and subsequently, further impositions of abwabs were strictly prohibited. Zamindars were required to give patta to raiyats specifying to them the exact amount of rent demanded from them. It was made a punishable offence to impose abwabs under any pretext over and above the rent recorded in the patta.
What role did economic ideas play in the early phase of the British rule in the shaping of land tenure policy? [2010, 30m]
Examine the major factors shaping the British land-revenue policy in India. How it affected Indian society? [2007, 60m]
Scottish Enlightenment – insisted on primacy in agriculture and celebrated importance of yeoman farmer.
Utilitarian Ideas – good of 40000 peasants over 4000 Zamindars.
David Ricardo’s theory of rent – state had legitimate share in surplus.
How was the Mahalwari system different from the Permanent Settlement?
Land revenue was the basis of state finance during the British rule and thus various systems were introduced in order to maintain a consistent revenue.
Categories | Mahalwari | Permanent |
Region | In the Gangetic Valley, North-West Provinces, parts of Central India, and the Punjab. | In Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and few other parts. |
Collection of revenue | Settlement was made with the “mahal” or the village. Ownership rights were vested with the peasants and the villages committee was held responsible for collection of the taxes. Instead of entering into an agreement with individual peasants or Zamindars. | The zamindars were given the right over land after payment of fixed revenue on the basis of assessment by authorities. |
Introduced by | By Holt Mackenzie in 1822 | Introduced by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal in 1793 |
Rate of Revenue | It was revised periodically (15-20 years) on the basis of assessment of land. | Was permanently fixed which extended upto 40 years. No assessment of land was done. |
Success and benefits | Was not successful as it could not provide the required revenue to British. | Was successful as it provided immense revenue to British, but it was detrimental for Zamindars due to high rate of revenue and sunset clause. |
Bring out the pattern of commercialization of agriculture in the 19th century. Was it a forced process for the vast majority of poorer peasants? [1986, 60m]
What do you mean by commercialization of Indian Agriculture? Discuss its result. [2006, 60m]
“Commercialisation of agriculture” was one of the major policies of the British Empire in rural India.
Commercialization can be defined as the process wherein farmers start producing primarily for sale in distant markets rather than for localized consumption or for sale in domestic markets (distant doesn’t necessarily mean exports; long-distance in-country trade, made possible by railways, also counts). The first wave of commercial agriculture was driven largely by Indigo and Opium.
To what extent did the process of commercialization of agriculture affect the rural scene in India? [2010, 30m]
The negative aspect of C.O.A. is as follows:
Affected self sufficiency of village economy.
Affected the condition of peasants and led to decline in local production - Agriculture at that time was subsistence in nature and C.O.A. laid emphasis on production of cash crops.
Now under influence of C.O.A. agriculture got associated with fulfilment of market in place of individual need. Famines increased.
C.O.A. indicated a commercial revolution. But this was devoid of any support from any technological revolution.
Peasant’s dependence on money lender’s and mediators increased and they received only a small fraction of profit.
It did not encourage growth of land market because major profit of commercialisation went to company traders and mediators.
It was a forced process for the vast majority of poorer peasants because of high revenue demand and necessity to pay revenue and rent in cash and above all for debt servicing. Only the rich peasants could for cash crops and they too remained immensely vulnerable to the fluctuations in the market.
In spite of having many negative effect commercialization in one sense was progressive event:
It encouraged social exchange and it made possible the transformation of Indian economy into capitalistic form.
It linked India with world economy. This was in itself a progress towards modernisation.
It led to growth of national agriculture and agricultural problem acquired national form.
Revisionist View: On the Whole Colonial India experienced positive economic growth – varied widely in time and space. For example, periods of growth (1860-1920) and regions of prosperity (Punjab, Coastal Madras and Western UP).
In British India “the impact of the government on the people meant essentially the impact of government on the village.” [1984, 20m] [1988, 20m][2005, 20m]
MKG stated that India lives in Villages which is not only true in present times to some extent, but was also during the BR over the country. It is due to this that numerous policies of EIC and Britain have their impacts on Indian Villages essentially.
One of the biggest impact of government on people and villages included the LRS policies. These LRS resulted in widespread exploitation of farmers with its benefits mainly garnered by landlords, moneylenders and Britishers themselves. It was because of these exploitations that peasants revolted on several occasion and even becoming the main forrce behind the Revolt of 1857.
The government also commercialised the Indian agriculture by allowing European Finance Capital and contract system. These policies also ruined agriculture, along with food crops and soil quality to villages. It erupted in revolts like Indigo revolt, Deccan uprisings of 1870 etc.
The Deindustrialisation of India by ruining the handicraft sector also exploited the Indian villages, including ruralisation of country and putting pressure on limited land resources of villages.
All these policies cumulatively resulted in several famines in the country, where India witnessed more than 40 major and minor famines during British Rule. It started with the dual government established by Clive in Bengal Famine of 1769 and ended with Great Bengal Famine of 1940s due to world war shortages.
Besides these negative impacts, the government's policies also had some positive impact on Indian Villages such as:
Uniform Administration: It checked the discrimination of people to some extent, on basis of race, caste and religion.
Safety and Security due to maintenance of law and order.
Western Education, Railways, Political Unification of country etc. resulted in rise of nationalism among masses, where people of all India participated in freedom struggle of country.
However, it remained a fact that it was the influence of British government policies which destroyed the self-sufficient nature of Indian villages from which the country is still reeling to uplift the masses.
What was progressive ruralisation?
When artisans lost job in Mughal courts due to British policies, they turned to agriculture, a movement which is called as progressive ruralisation. It was actually a movement that worsened the economic prospects in India.
Critically examine the causes responsible for the phenomenon called ‘de-industrialization’ in India during the nineteenth century. [2016]
Give a brief account of the industrial and agricultural policy of the Government of India between 1858 and 1914. How far is it correct to say that it was more in the interest of British capital than the Indian people? [1981, 60m]
“Instead of serving as the catalyst of an industrial revolution as in Western Europe and the USA, acted in India as ‘the catalyst of complete colonization.” Examine. [2012, 10m]
“The British Raj had a deeply racist aspect and it ultimately existed to protect colonial exploitation.” Comment. [1994, 20m]
"Write a critical note on: “Consequences of the ruin of handicraft industries under the rule of the East India Company.” [1981, 20m]
Trace the gradual decline of the Indian town handicrafts between 1757 and 1880. In what way did it contribute to the economic unification of India? [1987, 60m]
“The role of the East India Company proved disastrous to the handicraft industry in India for a number of reasons.” Comment. [1991, 20m]
“The British industrial policy in the nineteenth century ruined the Indian handicrafts.” Comment. [2001, 20m]
“Weaving”, says R.C. Dutt, “was the national industry of the people and spinning was the pursuit of millions of women.” Indian textiles went to England and other parts of Europe, to china and Japan and Burma and Arabia and Persia and parts of Africa. Elucidate. [2013, 25m]
The ruin of traditional industries (handicrafts) was the product of the establishment of British rule in India. This was mainly due to the competition posed by the machine made goods that were imported from Britain. The ability of mass production of goods helped Britain to flood the Indian markets with cheap products especially cotton textiles.
The railways facilitated the reach of these goods to remotest parts in India and the procurement of raw materials from these parts. The traditional handicrafts industry faced a tough competition from these goods produced in bulk.
Indian goods were also subjected to high tariffs in the English market whereas the British goods gained duty free access into the Indian markets.
Thus, the British industrial policy in the nineteenth century ruined the Indian handicrafts.
Negative consequences of the ruin of handicraft industries
| Positive consequences of the ruin of handicraft industries
|
|
|
Trace the course and explain the consequences of the drain of wealth from Bengal in the eighteenth century. [1982, 60m]
One of the most important characteristic of India’s foreign trade throughout the colonial period was the generation of a large export surplus. Explain how this was achieved?
Largely by exploitative colonial policies that used the surplus to fund their trade.
DOW was taking place as:
Home Charges - office of SoS in London was paid by Indian Tax Revenue.
Military expenditures - foreign wars were fought from money obtained by Indians.
Distorted trade policies and LRS.
After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the English East India Company began converting a large portion of the tax revenue from conquered areas into funds for ‘investments’.
These ‘investments’ were then used to purchase Indian goods (from Indian money), and these goods were then sold internationally. This represented a wholesale transfer of Indian revenues to the Company’s coffers in Britain. This meant that Britain did not need to export anything to India in return for what it obtained from India as imports.
Thus, there arose a large excess of Indian exports over imports (export surplus - around 4% of national income) pretty much all the way through before the WW1. Even in face of ever-increasing British imports (textiles etc.), India almost consistently maintained an export surplus of over 20% over imports till 1914; but this didn’t translate into any benefit for the economy.
How did the large export surplus lead to drain of wealth?
Several essential commodities—food grains, clothes, kerosene etc. — became conspicuous by their acute scarcity in the domestic market. Furthermore, this export surplus did not result in any flow of gold or silver into India. Rather, this was used to make payments for the expenses incurred by an office set up by the colonial government in Britain, expenses on war, again fought by the British government, and the import of invisible items, all of which led to the drain of Indian wealth.
Write a critique on the impact of the Drain Theory of Dadabhai Nauroji in the growth of economic nationalism. [2008, 60m]
It was in May 1867 that Dadabhai Naroji put forward the idea that Britain was draining and bleeding India. R.C. Dutt made the drain the major theme of his Economic History of India.
Banking on this theory the early nationalists attributed the all-encompassing poverty not as a visitation from God or nature. It was seen as man-made, and therefore capable of being explained and removed.
In course of their search for the causes of India’s poverty, the nationalists underlined factors and forces which had been brought into play by colonial rulers and the colonial structure. (Refer economic impact of British rule).
Foreign capital perpetuated foreign rule – vested interests of investors. Instead of encouraging and augmenting Indian capital, foreign capital replaced and suppressed it, led to the drain of capital from India and further strengthened the British hold over Indian economy.
The secret of the British power in India lay not only in physical force but also in moral force that is in the belief that the British were the patrons of the common people of India. The nationalist drain theory gradually undermined these moral foundations.
Step by step, issue by issue, they began to draw the conclusion that since the British administration was only the handmade to the task of exploitation, pro-Indian and developmental policies would be followed only by a regime in which Indians had control over political power.
The result was that even though the early nationalists remained moderates and professed loyalty to British rule, they cut at the political roots of the empire and sowed in the land, the seeds of disaffection and disloyalty and even sedition. Gradually, the nationalists veered from demanding reforms to begin demanding self-government or swaraj like that of the United Kingdom or the colonies.
Thus, the nationalists of the twentieth century were relying heavily on the main themes of their economic critique of colonialism.
Taxation raised by a king is like the moisture of the earth sucked up by the sun, to be returned to the earth as fertilising rain; but moisture raised from the Indian soil during Br rule descended as fertilising rain largely on Britain, not on India. Comment. [Refer TS]
“Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.” Comment. [1985, 20m]
Highlighting the suppressive and colonial nature of British rule in India, John Sullivan, President of the Board of Revenue, Madras had said the above lines. He defended the Indian Land Revenue system but complained against the annual Economic Drain from India. In his view it is not the amount altogether that people of India have to complain of but rather the application of that amount. Under the Indian dynasties money was spent in the country but under our (British) rule that money is annually drained away.
D Naoroji said that India was continuously deprived of its wealth. By whatever amount India was deprived, had it been invested in INDIA a huge development would have taken place.
“The need for a unilateral transfer of funds to Britain was constant factor and, in fact, progressively increased over time.” Critically evaluate. [2011, 20m]
It is revealing to know that parliamentary select committee of 1812 made efforts to discover how Indian manufacturers could be replaced by British manufacturers.
Drain of Wealth – one means. Home Charges, Railways. | The increase in public debt was met by increasing the tax on salt. 75% of the tax revenue was derived from sources that hurt the masses. | Policy of Free Trade – Export Surplus => no investments by capital inflow. | Most importantly nothing was beneficial. All was exploitative. |
Critically examine the impact of the famine policy on rural India. Describe the official remedial measures undertaken. [2008, 60m]
Trace the development of the famine policy of the British in India 1876 and 1921. Did it provide relief to the people? [2005, 60m]
“India underwent suffering and mortality in the wake of recurring famines’ in the later half of the 19th century.” Comment. [2003, 20m]
William Digby, a British writer has calculated that, in all, over 28,825,000 people died during famines from 1854 to 1901.
In the famine of 1865-66 that engulfed Orissa, Bengal, Bihar and Madras and took a fall of nearly 20 lakhs of lives, Orissa alone lost 10 lakhs of people. The Government officers though forewarned took no steps to meet the calamity.
The old doctrine that the public was responsible for the relief of the helpless was abandoned. The Government was expected to borrow money in order to finance for building of Railways and canals.
During the great famine of 1876-78, which affected Madras, Bombay, Uttar Pradesh and the Punjab about five million people perished in a single year. The Government made half-hearted efforts to help the famine-stricken.
In 1880, the Government of Lytton appointed commission suggest particular' measures of preventive character: Wages paid should be adjusted from time to time to provide sufficient food for a labourer's support. It should be the duty of the state to provide gratuitous relief to the impotent poor and listed the category of persons entitled to receive it. In times of excessive drought, facilities should be provided for migration of cattle to grassy forests areas where abundant pasturage was available. A new Famine Fund was thus created.
In 1883 the provisional famine code was formulated which formed a guide for precautions and duties of all concerned.
Closely following this came the famine of 1896-97. It affected almost every province though in varying degrees of intensity and the total population affected was estimated at 34 million. The relief measures were conducted with a fair degree of success.
Following the famine of 1899-1900, the government of Lord Curzon appointed MacDonnell Co which submitted its report in 1901. It emphasised the benefits of a policy of moral strategy, early distribution of advances for purchase of seed and cattle and sinking of temporary wells. The commission also stressed the deniability of better transport facilities, opening of agricultural banks, improvement of irrigation facilities, and vigorous measures to faster improved methods of agriculture. Most of the recommendations of the commission were accepted and before Curzon left India, he had taken various measures to prevent and combat famine.
With the enactment of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, the famine relief measures and responsibility was entrusted to the provincial government in the year 1921. Though, the British took the above said measures, on famine they proved inadequate to provide relief to the millions.
The vastness of the country, diverse causes for famines and supervisory approach by the government failed to bring out desired results. And above all the basic culture of a colonial rule with its exploitation and extractive orientation prevented any whole-hearted effort in this sphere and failed to provide relief and easy recovery to the millions in India.
“The recurring famines in the 19th century were the inevitable consequence of the British policy and expose the real character of the paternal solicitude for the peasantry on the part of the British administration.” Examine this statement critically. [2002, 60m]
Assess critically the economic impact of the British rule in India till the end of the nineteenth century. [1979, 60m]
Discuss the view that the British rule brought about economic changes in India to serve the needs of the imperial economy and establish a dependent form of underdevelopment in this country. [2000, 60m]
Did India under British rule experience any development at all? What were the economic impact of British Rule?
Commercialization of Agriculture | Drain of Wealth | Decline of Handicrafts | Famines |
Factors/ Features/ Mechanism |
|
|
|
Based on Needs of remittance rather than the requirements. The Peasants were forced. The necessity to pay revenue and rent in cash. Excessive Burden of land revenue. Contract System (Tinkathia) Facilitation of European Financial Cap. Charter Act 1833 – allow Plantation etc (invest in immovable by Company). Need of raw – Opium = China trade. Easy to export – facilitate DoW. | Misuse of political powers by Company. Mercantilism – max. trade profit using political powers. Mechanism - Interest on Foreign debt incurred by EIC. Military Expenditure. Guaranteed interest on foreign investments in RLYS. Govt purchase policy of importing all stationery from England. Home Charges – paying for SoS and his India Office in London. By EIC till 1858 and Br. Govt after. From 13% in 1857 to 40% in 1920. | British laws (1720) prohibit Ind. Cloth. Colonial Character – one way trade: high tariff – Ind goods:: duty free Br. Goods. Imperialistic Expansion – destruct. Of native courts i.e. patron. Policy of Westernization – change of consumption pattern. DoW. Forced to divulge trade secrets. Craftsmen – low or no wages = cut thumbs to escape. | Lack Food Grains due to non-availability: Decline Agriculture (L.R. Settlement). Reduction in production in food grains. Export. Black market/hoarding. Lack food grains due to lack of purchasing power: No surplus left – burden of land. Taxes. DoW. DoH. |
Consequences |
|
|
|
Intensified Economic Exploitation. Fertility of Soil adversely affected (Indigo, Opium). As prices fluctuated so did rural economy. Rural instability: Deccan Riots 1870. India became subservient economy. Rural indebtedness: Trail of Poverty. Impact on Peasants - rich may have become richer and poor remained poor (not poorer). Aggregate production of food crops lagged behind pop. Growth (1947) | No Capital Formation = No I.R. (but yes Br. I. R.). India remain Backward. Eroded Purchasing power of India = decline of handicrafts. De industrialisation. Realization of DoW by intellectuals – emergence of Nationalism. Loss faith ‘White Man’s Burden’. | Serious unemployment. De-urbanization. Rural migration = increased pressure on land = fragmentation of land holdings. Landless labourers (1st time). Ruralisation of I. Economy – Agricultural based. Poverty, Famines – since large section loss i/c. | Upto 1858: no effort. 1769 – 1/3 wiped; manufactured famine in Bengal. After 1858: no effective measure – colonial nature. 1860-61- Delhi-Agra: Baird Smith Co – no effective recommendation. 1860-Orissa-Campbell Co – held BR responsible. Famine Code – Lord Rippon in 1833 yet: 1896 – many parts - 5 million lost 1899 – many parts – 1 million lost – Mcdonell Co – Agri bank. 1943 – Bengal Famine -1.5mn lost. i.e. Tradition of death admin. |
“Railway development in India provides an interesting instance of private enterprise at public risk.” Comment. [2010, 20m]
Railways main purpose was to serve the interests of the empire, rather than the needs of Indian economy.
In 1853, Lord Dalhousie decided to construct railways mainly to facilitate army needs.
Gradually there arose another need to integrate Indian market to open it to British imports.
But the cost of railway development was born by the Indian exchequer and the profit was reaped by the British. It is evident from the following -
The British capital investments were invited and guaranteed 5% interests, if needed, from Indian revenues.
The companies were given free land with 99 years lease, after the expiry of which the line would become government property.
But any time before that – even few months before the expiry of the lease - the companies could return the lines to the government and claim full compensation for all capital extended. This made Railways an instance of private enterprise at public risk.
The main purpose of Railway Construction was for the interest of foreign trade, rather than favour Indian Economic Development.
The construction planning – connected the internal markets with the ports, but provided no interconnection between the internal market cities.
The preferential freight charges – less freight charges for bulk manufactured goods travelling from ports to the interior and raw materials from the interior to the ports, than vice-versa.
The transfer of technology remained confined to low technology areas, such as plate laying, bridge building.
In certain cases the construction work disturbed ecology, subverted the natural sewage system, and in Bengal for example, created malaria epidemic in the 19th century.
Although there were some unintended benefits of Railway Development as well, such as:
Encourage the construction of feeder roads – interconnecting different regions of India.
Provided a cheaper mode of transportation for both people and goods – later Indian business take advantage of this.
Significant social and cultural impact on Indian society and nation.
When British left in 1947, 65000km of railway tracks were built.
But the amount of public investment made in railways did not benefit the people of India in the same proportion. Even the nationalist argued that such public investment in irrigation would have given higher social benefits. Thus, the railway development in India has been aptly described by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya as "an instance of private enterprise at public risk".
“Plantations and mines, jutes, banking, insurance, shipping and export-import concerns in India were run through a system of interlocking managing agencies.” Critically examine. [2012, 10m]
How do you account of the rise and growth of the Business enterprise in India during the first half of the 20th century? [1994, 60m]
Plantations and mines, jutes, banking, insurance, shipping and export-import concerns in India were run through a system of interlocking managing agencies.
There was a process of de-industrialization in India with slow but steady death of handicraft industries. However, in the early part of the 19th century, Indians started establishing factories of jute, steel, cotton and coal mines.
One major reason why the Indian entrepreneurs failed and their European counterparts thrived was the latter’s greater access to and command over capital, facilitated by their connections with the banks and agency houses, while the Indians had to depend on their kins, families and caste men. On the other hand, the British economic interests in India operated through the Chambers of Commerce and the Managing Agency Houses, which influenced government policies and eliminated indigenous competition.
The managing agencies controlled a host of joint stock companies with no obligations to their shareholders. They preferred racial exclusivism and autonomy, and resisted all attempts at integration. The banking, insurance and shipping firms on which the trade depended heavily was the monopoly of British. These firms worked together in tandem and had windfall gains.
Examples of Economic Favouritism:
Tea plantation in Assam –Native investors were deliberately ignored. Inland Emigration Act of 1859 secured the investors a steady supply of labour – migrant could not leave the site.
Development of Jute Industry in Bengal – Bulk of capital invested was British capital, organised through Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA), which controlled output in order to maintain high prices.
0 Comments