Test: Peasants And Farmers - 1 - UPSC MCQ

Open fields in the country side proved favorable for the merchants to look for and provide money to the peasants and artisans to produce for the international market. With the shrinking of the open fields and Commons, peasants were left with small plots of land not sufficient to meet their family needs so they took to alternate source of income.

Explanation:
The correct answer is D: Common land was divided into strips. This was not a feature of strip cultivation. Here is a detailed explanation of the other options:
A: Cultivable land around villages was divided into strips.
- This is a feature of strip cultivation. The cultivable land around villages was divided into long, narrow strips.
B: Beginning of each year villagers were allocated a number of strips to cultivate.
- This is a feature of strip cultivation. At the beginning of each year, villagers were allocated a specific number of strips to cultivate.
C: Strips were a mix of good and bad land.
- This is a feature of strip cultivation. The strips were a mix of good and bad land, and each villager would receive a mix of both types of land.
D: Common land was divided into strips.
- This is not a feature of strip cultivation. Strip cultivation refers to the division of cultivable land around villages into strips, not common land.
In summary, the feature that was not a part of strip cultivation was D: Common land was divided into strips.

Strip cropping  is a method of farming which involves cultivating a field partitioned into long, narrow strips which are alternated in a crop rotation system. It is used when a slope is too steep or when there is no alternative method of preventing soil erosion.

Common land is land owned collectively by a number of persons, or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect wood, or to cut turf for fuel. It’s main features are that all villagers had access to it, it helped sustain the meagre income of the poor and the poor fished in ponds, collected fuel, food and fodder.

16th century enclosures were driven by:
1. Desire to improve breeding and expand wool production:
- Enclosures were primarily driven by the need to improve agricultural practices and increase productivity.
- Landowners sought to enclose their land to implement new farming techniques and selectively breed livestock, especially sheep, to produce higher-quality wool.
- Enclosed lands allowed for better control over the breeding process and the ability to focus on specific breeds that yielded more profitable results.
2. Land grab:
- Enclosures also served as a means for wealthy landowners to consolidate their holdings and gain more control over agricultural resources.
- By enclosing common lands and converting them into private property, landowners could expand their estates and increase their wealth and power.
- Enclosures often resulted in the displacement of small farmers and rural communities, leading to social unrest and economic inequality.
3. Parliamentary legislation:
- While enclosures were primarily driven by individual landowners, some enclosures were facilitated by parliamentary legislation.
- Acts of Parliament, such as the Statute of Merton (1235) and the Statute of Westminster (1285), provided legal mechanisms for landowners to enclose their lands.
- However, it is important to note that parliamentary legislation was not the main driving force behind enclosures in the 16th century.
4. Desire to increase grain production:
- While wool production was a significant factor, the desire to increase grain production also played a role in enclosures.
- Enclosed lands allowed for more efficient cultivation of crops and the implementation of new agricultural techniques.
- Landowners could focus on growing cash crops, such as wheat and barley, to meet the growing demand for food and increase their profits.
Overall, the 16th century enclosures were primarily driven by the desire to improve breeding and expand wool production, as well as the pursuit of land consolidation and increased agricultural productivity. While parliamentary legislation and the desire to increase grain production also played a role, they were not the main driving forces behind enclosures during this period.

Enclosure was the legal process in England of consolidating (enclosing) small landholdings into larger farms.

Over the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the English countryside changed dramatically.After the mid-eighteenth century, the Enclosure Movement swept through the countryside, changing the English landscape forever. The reasons being; Rapid expansion of population from 7 million in 1750 to 21 million in 1850 and 30 million in 1900 and increased demand for food grains to feed the growing population.

Hence enclosure in the 18th century was undertaken to increase grain production, unlike that which took place in 16th century.

Factors contributing to increased food grain production in post-1780 Britain can be attributed to a combination of radical innovations in technology, population expansion, urbanization, and simple innovations coupled with new lands under cultivation.
- Radical Innovations in Technology:
- The Agricultural Revolution brought about significant advancements in farming techniques, such as the use of seed drills, crop rotation, and selective breeding of livestock.
- The development of new farming machinery, such as the threshing machine and the reaper, increased efficiency and productivity in the agricultural sector.
- Population Expansion:
- The population of Britain experienced a significant increase during the post-1780 period.
- A growing population created a higher demand for food, which necessitated an increase in food grain production.
- Urbanization:
- The process of urbanization led to the growth of cities and towns, which resulted in a higher demand for food from urban areas.
- This demand stimulated agricultural production, as farmers had to increase their yields to meet the needs of the growing urban population.
- Simple Innovations and New Lands under Cultivation:
- Farmers implemented simple innovations, such as improving drainage systems and using fertilizers, to enhance crop yields.
- The enclosure movement, which involved consolidating and enclosing small plots of land, allowed for more efficient land use and increased agricultural productivity.
- Additionally, new lands were brought under cultivation, either through the reclamation of marshes and wastelands or through agricultural expansion in colonies and newly acquired territories.
Overall, the combination of technological advancements, population growth, urbanization, and simple innovations, along with the utilization of new lands, contributed to the significant increase in food grain production in post-1780 Britain.

Effects of Enclosures:

• Loss of customary rights: The poor lost their customary rights to common lands, which had previously allowed them to access resources for grazing, gathering firewood, and cultivating small plots of land.


• Decreased demand for agricultural laborers: The enclosure movement led to the consolidation of smaller farms into larger, more efficient units. This reduced the need for agricultural laborers, as fewer workers were required to manage larger farms.


• Gainful employment for the poor: While enclosures resulted in the displacement of many rural poor, it also created opportunities for gainful employment in the emerging capitalist agricultural sector. The enclosure of common lands meant that landless peasants had to seek employment as wage laborers on these larger farms.


• Stability in work and income: The transition from small-scale, subsistence farming to larger, commercial farms brought about a more stable system of work and income for those who were able to secure wage labor. Instead of relying on unpredictable harvests, they now had a regular source of income.

Answer: A. The poor lost their customary rights.

Answer:
Introduction:
Enclosures refer to the process of enclosing and consolidating common lands into individual private properties. This practice was prevalent in Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Enclosures had various impacts on different sections of society. In this case, we need to determine who gained the most from enclosures among the given options.
Rich landowners:
- Gained the most from enclosures
- Acquired larger landholdings and consolidated their power and wealth
- Could use the enclosed land for commercial agriculture and increase productivity
- Benefited from the increase in land value and rents
Traders:
- Might have benefited indirectly from enclosures
- Increased production and efficiency in agriculture could lead to surplus food production, which could be traded
- Enclosures might have created opportunities for trade in agricultural products
State:
- Might have gained some benefits from enclosures
- Enclosures led to increased agricultural productivity and tax revenues for the state
- The state could also control and regulate the enclosed land more effectively
The poor:
- Did not gain much from enclosures
- Lost access to common lands, which were a source of subsistence for them
- Displaced from their homes and livelihoods
- Became dependent on wage labor, which often had poor working conditions and low wages
Conclusion:
Among the given options, the rich landowners gained the most from enclosures. They acquired larger landholdings, increased their wealth and power, and benefited from increased agricultural productivity and land value. Traders and the state might have gained some indirect benefits, while the poor suffered the most from enclosures, losing access to common lands and facing displacement and exploitation.

Factors in farmers investing in threshing machines
There were several important factors that led farmers to invest in threshing machines, including:
1. Labour shortage: The availability of manual laborers for agricultural tasks was limited, leading to a shortage of workers to operate threshing machines manually. This scarcity of labor made it necessary for farmers to seek alternative methods of threshing.
2. Insolence of labourers: Some laborers displayed insolence or disobedience, which made it difficult for farmers to rely on them for consistent and efficient threshing. This behavior may have prompted farmers to consider investing in machines that would reduce their dependence on laborers.
3. High wages demanded by labour: Laborers often demanded high wages for their work, which could be a financial burden for farmers. Investing in threshing machines would allow farmers to reduce their labor costs in the long run.
4. To reduce dependence on labor: By investing in threshing machines, farmers could decrease their reliance on manual labor and increase efficiency in the threshing process. Machines could perform the task more quickly and consistently compared to human labor, saving time and increasing productivity.
Overall, the combination of a labor shortage, laborer insolence, high labor costs, and the desire to reduce dependence on labor were all significant factors that motivated farmers to invest in threshing machines.

Agrarian expansion in the USA is closely connected to the:
American War of Independence (1775-1783)
- The American War of Independence played a significant role in shaping the agrarian expansion in the USA.
- After gaining independence from British rule, Americans had more control over their land and resources, which encouraged agricultural expansion.
Slave trade
- The expansion of agriculture in the USA relied heavily on slave labor, particularly in the Southern states.
- The slave trade provided a large workforce to cultivate crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice, which fueled the agrarian expansion.
Westward movement
- The agrarian expansion in the USA was closely tied to the westward movement.
- As pioneers moved westward, they sought fertile land for cultivation, leading to the expansion of agriculture in new territories.
Fertility of the soil
- The fertility of the soil played a crucial role in determining where agrarian expansion took place.
- Areas with rich and fertile soil were more suitable for agriculture, attracting settlers and contributing to the expansion of farming.
Overall, agrarian expansion in the USA was closely connected to the westward movement, the availability of fertile soil, and the reliance on slave labor facilitated by the slave trade. While the American War of Independence did not directly drive agrarian expansion, it created conditions that allowed for greater control over land and resources, contributing indirectly to agricultural growth.

Factors in America being a land of promise:
- Wildness could be turned into cultivated fields: The vast expanse of land in America provided opportunities for settlers to convert wilderness into farmland, allowing for agricultural development and economic growth.
- Forest timber exploited for export: America's abundant forests offered an abundant supply of timber for export, which contributed to the growth of industries such as shipbuilding and construction.
- Animals hunted for skin and mountains mined for gold and minerals: The natural resources found in America, including furs, gold, and minerals, attracted individuals seeking economic opportunities. The exploitation of these resources played a significant role in the development of industries and the growth of the economy.
- American-Indians could be used as labor: This option is incorrect. Native American Indians were often forced into labor, either through enslavement or coerced labor agreements. Their labor was used for various purposes, including farming, mining, and construction.
Overall, these factors contributed to the promise of America as a land of opportunity, attracting individuals seeking economic prosperity and a chance for a better life.

Period of Dramatic Expansion of Wheat Production in the USA
The dramatic expansion of wheat production in the USA took place during the period of 1910-1920. Here's a detailed explanation:
1. Introduction
- The expansion of wheat production refers to a significant increase in the cultivation and harvest of wheat crops in the USA.
2. Options Analysis
- Option A: 1775-1830 - This period falls within the early stages of American history and does not align with the dramatic expansion of wheat production.
- Option B: 1830-1850 - This period is too short to account for a significant expansion in wheat production.
- Option C: 1850-1910 - Although this period covers a longer duration, it does not capture the specific timeframe of dramatic expansion.
- Option D: 1910-1920 - This period is the correct answer as it represents the timeframe when there was a substantial increase in wheat production.
3. Explanation
- The period of 1910-1920 witnessed a boom in wheat production in the USA due to various factors, including technological advancements and increased demand.
- The introduction of new machinery, such as steam-powered tractors and combine harvesters, revolutionized the efficiency of wheat farming.
- The demand for wheat increased during World War I as Europe relied heavily on American wheat for food supplies.
- The expansion of railway networks also facilitated the transportation of wheat from rural areas to urban markets.
- Overall, the years 1910-1920 marked a significant period of growth and expansion in wheat production in the USA.
4. Conclusion
- The correct answer is option D: 1910-1920, as this period corresponds to the dramatic expansion of wheat production in the USA.

Answer:
To identify who said the words "Plant more wheat, wheat will win the war", we need to analyze the given options and provide a detailed solution.
Possible Options:
A: President Thomas Jefferson
B: President Roosevelt
C: President George Bush
D: President Wilson
Analysis:
We will go through each option and determine if any of the presidents mentioned could have made this statement.
A: President Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States, serving from 1801 to 1809.
- Although Jefferson was known for his agricultural policies, there is no record of him saying the specific words mentioned.
B: President Roosevelt
- There are two presidents named Roosevelt - Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
- Theodore Roosevelt served as the 26th President from 1901 to 1909, and Franklin D. Roosevelt served as the 32nd President from 1933 to 1945.
- Neither of the Roosevelts is known for making this statement.
C: President George Bush
- There were two presidents named George Bush - George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
- George H. W. Bush served as the 41st President from 1989 to 1993, and George W. Bush served as the 43rd President from 2001 to 2009.
- Neither of the Bush presidents is associated with this statement.
D: President Wilson
- Woodrow Wilson served as the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.
- Wilson is known for his agricultural policies during World War I and promoting food conservation, including encouraging the planting of wheat.
- The statement "Plant more wheat, wheat will win the war" aligns with Wilson's emphasis on increasing wheat production during the war.
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the person who said the words "Plant more wheat, wheat will win the war" is President Wilson.

Two major commercial crops of early 19th century India:


There were two major commercial crops that played a significant role in the economy of early 19th century India. These crops were indigo and opium.
1. Indigo:
- Indigo was a highly valuable cash crop during the early 19th century in India.
- It was primarily cultivated in the eastern regions of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
- Indigo was used for dyeing textiles, and its demand was high in the European market.
- The British East India Company encouraged the cultivation of indigo as it brought significant profits.
- Indigo plantations were notorious for their harsh and exploitative labor practices, leading to widespread protests and uprisings.
2. Opium:
- Opium cultivation and trade were also crucial to the economy of early 19th century India.
- Opium was primarily grown in the fertile Gangetic plains of Bengal and Bihar.
- The British East India Company had a monopoly on opium production and trade.
- The opium produced in India was mainly exported to China, where it was in high demand.
- The opium trade became a source of immense wealth for the British and played a significant role in shaping the history of India and China.
Overall, indigo and opium were two major commercial crops that dominated the economy of early 19th century India. The cultivation and trade of these crops had far-reaching consequences for both the local population and the colonial powers.

Opium production in India was linked with British trade in China
- Opium production in India was closely linked with British trade in China during the 18th and 19th centuries.
- The British East India Company, which had established a monopoly on trade with India, began cultivating opium in India as a means to fulfill the high demand for the drug in China.
- Opium was grown in large quantities in the fertile regions of Bengal and Bihar in India.
- The British East India Company then smuggled the opium into China, where it was sold for a high profit.
- The profits from the opium trade played a significant role in financing the British Empire's expansion and industrial development.
- The opium trade also had devastating effects on Chinese society, leading to widespread addiction and social problems.
- The Chinese government attempted to ban the import of opium, leading to the Opium Wars between China and Britain in the mid-19th century.
- The British victory in these wars further solidified their control over the opium trade and China's economy.
- Ultimately, the opium trade played a significant role in shaping the relationship between Britain and China during this period.

Opium was such an important commodity. The Portuguese had introduced opium into China in the early 16^th century.

The correct option is B.
Opium trade, in Chinese history, the traffic that developed in the 18th and 19th centuries ... Early in the 18th century the Portuguese found that they could import opium from India and ... Foreign traders (primarily British) had been illegal

The First Opium War took place between Britain and China (1837-1842).

• Background: The Opium War was a conflict between China and Western powers, primarily Britain, over trade relations and the illegal opium trade.


• Causes: The main cause of the war was the British East India Company's smuggling of opium into China, which caused widespread addiction and social problems.


• Timeline: The First Opium War lasted from 1837 to 1842.


• British involvement: Britain, armed with advanced military technology, launched a series of naval attacks on Chinese ports and coastal cities.


• Chinese resistance: Despite initial Chinese resistance, the British forces proved to be superior, leading to a series of defeats for the Chinese.


• Treaty of Nanking: In 1842, the Treaty of Nanking was signed, which marked the end of the war. China was forced to cede Hong Kong to Britain, open several ports for trade, and pay a large indemnity.


• Impact: The Opium War had significant consequences for China, including the weakening of the Qing Dynasty, the loss of sovereignty, and the opening of China to foreign influence and trade.

Overall, the First Opium War was a pivotal event in Chinese history, as it highlighted the power imbalance between China and Western powers and had far-reaching consequences for China's future.

By the middle of the 18th century Bihar had become the province in which opium of the best quality and greatest quantity was produced. In the anarchy of the period, the Government monopoly had fallen into abeyance. Bengal was the principal area for cultivation of the poppy. As the price of this variety began to increase at an alarming rate, they turned their attention to Bengal opium.

Indian farmer was goaded into cultivation of opium by system of advances:
- The system of advances was a key factor that goaded Indian farmers into cultivating opium.
- Under this system, farmers were provided with financial support or loans in advance by the British government or its agents.
- This system ensured that farmers had the necessary capital to invest in opium cultivation, which required significant expenses for land preparation, seeds, and labor.
- The advances given to farmers acted as an incentive for them to engage in opium cultivation as it provided them with a sense of security against potential losses.
- Farmers were often trapped in a cycle of debt due to the advances, which made them dependent on opium cultivation to repay their loans.
- The system of advances created a strong economic motivation for farmers to grow opium as it offered them a way to improve their financial situation and meet their immediate needs.
- The British government and its agents used the system of advances as a tool to encourage and control opium production in India, ensuring a steady supply for the British East India Company's opium trade with China.

Factors in British confiscation of opium produced in Central India and Rajasthan:
1. Retention of British government's monopoly rights: The British government had established a monopoly on the trade of opium, and confiscating opium produced in Central India and Rajasthan allowed them to maintain control over the lucrative trade.
2. Inferior quality of opium: It is not mentioned in the question that the opium produced was of inferior quality. Therefore, this factor is not applicable.
3. Selling to local traders: Many cultivators in Central India and Rajasthan were selling their opium crop to local traders instead of the British East India Company. This threatened the British government's monopoly, leading to the confiscation of opium.
4. Peasants refusing to sell after taking advances: Peasants, who were often in need of immediate cash, would take advances from the British East India Company in exchange for their opium crop. However, some peasants would later refuse to sell their opium, causing financial losses for the company. Confiscating the opium was a way for the British government to prevent such situations.
In conclusion, the main factor in the British confiscation of opium produced in Central India and Rajasthan was to retain the British government's monopoly rights to the opium trade.