Spectrum Test: The Economic Impact of British Rule in India - UPSC MCQ

• The loss of traditional livelihood was not accompanied by industrialization in India, as had happened in other rapidly industrializing countries of the time. 

• This resulted in the deindustrialization of India at a time when Europe was witnessing a reintensified Industrial Revolution. 

• This happened at a time when Indian artisans and handicraftsmen were already feeling the crunch due to loss of patronage by princes and the nobility, who were now under the influence of new western tastes and values.

• Another feature of deindustrialization was the decline of many cities and a process of ruralization of India.

• Many artisans, faced with diminishing returns and repressive policies in Bengal, during the Company's rule, artisans were paid low wages and forced to sell their products at low prices), abandoned their professions, moved to villages and took to agriculture. 

• This resulted in increased pressure on land. An overburdened agriculture sector was a major cause of poverty during British rule, which upset the village economic setup.

• The government, only interested in the maximization of rents and in securing its share of revenue, had enforced the Permanent Settlement system in large parts. 

• Transferability of land was one feature of the new settlement that caused great insecurity to the tenants who lost all their traditional land rights. 

• There was little spending by the Government on the improvement of land productivity. 

• With increased powers, the zamindars resorted to summary evictions, demanded illegal dues and begar' to maximize their share in the production, and had no incentive to invest for improvement of agriculture. 

• The overburdened peasants had to approach the moneylenders to be able to pay their dues to the zamindars.

• The overburdened peasants had to approach the moneylenders to be able to pay their dues to the zamindars. The moneylender, who was often also the village grain-merchant, forced the farmer to sell the produce at low prices to clear his dues. 

• The powerful moneylender was also able to manipulate the judiciary and law in his favour. 

• The peasant turned out to be the ultimate sufferer under the government's triple burden, zamindar and money- lender. His hardship increased at the time of famine and scarcity.

This was as much true for the zamindari areas as for areas under Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems.

• The cultivator had neither the means nor any incentive to invest in agriculture. The zamindar had no roots in the villages, while the Government spent little on agricultural, technical or mass education. 

• With the fragmentation of land due to sub-infeudation, all this made it difficult to introduce modern technology which caused a perpetually low level of productivity.

• Regular recurrence of famines became a common feature of daily existence in India. 

• These famines were not just because of food grain scarcity but were a direct result of poverty unleashed by India's colonial forces. Between 1850 and 1900, about 2.8 crore people died in famines.

• Indian traders, moneylenders and bankers had amassed some wealth as junior partners of English merchant capitalists in India. Their role fitted in the British scheme of colonial exploitation. 

• The Indian moneylender provided loans to hard-pressed agriculturists and thus facilitated the state collection of revenue. 

• The Indian trader carried imported British products to the remotest corners and helped in Indian agricultural products for exports. The indigenous bankers helped both in the process of distribution and collection.