Unit-2 Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism.pdf

7/27/2019 Unit-2 Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism.pdf

1/12

UNIT 2 IMPER IALISM: ITS EFFECTSStructure2.0 Objectives2.1 Introduction2.2 Theories of Colonialism2.2.1. European Views

2.2.2 Indian Nationalists' Views2.3 Effects of Colonialism2.3.1 De-industrialisation2.3.2 Famines in Colonial India2.3.3 Commercialisation of Agriculture2.3.4 Impact of Commercialisation on Ru ral Society2.4 Modern Industry and Indian Capitalist Class2.5 The Colonial State2.6 Let Us Sum Up2.7 Key Words2.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

2.0 OBJECTIVESIn this Unit we intend to study the impact of Colonialism on Indian society in detailsand spell out the economic, social and political effects of the British colonial rule inIndia. This unit shows that the colonial state was a serviceable instrument not so muchfor the modernisation of Indian economy and society as for maintaining the logic ofcolonial state. After reading this unit, you will be able to learn :

the various theories of colonialism, both European as well as those formulated byIndian nationalists,the impact of colonialism on Indian economy in terms of de-industrialisation andcommercialisation of agriculture,how modem industry emerged in India and the role of capitalist class, andsome of the political aspects of the colonial process.

2.1 INTRODUCTIONIn order to understand the nature of colonialism and its economic, social and politicalimpact on India, it is necessary to comprehend colonialism in a world perspective. If welook at India alone we shall fail to understand the structural logic of imperialism and agood deal of what happened might appear to be due to the "bad policies" or fromanother point of view "good policies" of certain individual figures among the ~ri t" ls hrulers and policy framers in India. A great deal of historical criticism in the past hasbeen done in these terms; how a misguided Governor General or a bad administratoror a negligent public opinion in England allowed or brought about bad things to happento Indian People. The apologists for the empire have invariably repeated the samediscourse on goodlbad policies. Even the nationalist leaders of the early days were notentirely free from this type of superficial thinking about the empire. They were able tobuild a convincing case against the exploitative and oppressive aspects of British rule;but lacked the broader perspective which enabled the later-day critics including thoseinfluenced by Marxism to locate colonialism within the context of capitalist imperialismor the capitalist world system, and thus enhanced our understanding of the historicaldevelopments within its coii~punent art, the Indian Elnpiie. The iatrcl dpproech rc thephenomenon of colonial expansion can be traced back to some early twentieth centurycritics of imperialism; Hobson, Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin. In India thisapproach was developed by, among others, M.N. Roy, Jawaharlal Nehru and R.P.


2/12


3/12


4/12

Imperialism, Colonialism andNationalism

..........................................................................................................

3) What do you understand by the terms 'formal imperialism' and 'informalimperialism? Write in hundred wmds, with examples.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

2.3 EFFECTS OF COLONIALISM-

You have read about the various stages of colonialism in Unit 1 . But how did thesestages affect the Indian economy? The artisan, peasant, worker and merchant-practicallq all sections of the Indian society were affected by colonial policies. In thissection we shall deal with the economic impact of colonialism.The destruction of traditional Indian industries was one of the earliest consequences ofcolonialism to be noticed and documented in this country. While it was evidentlyconnected with the growth of modem factory industry in England, the beginning of theprocess of destruction of Indian cottage industries lay further back, in the 18th century,when the products of Indian industries were still prized as valuable items of commerce.In that early stage of mercantile capitalism the source of profit of the East IndianCompany was the difference between the cost prices in India and the sale prices inEngland of the Indian Industrial products like cotton and silk textiles. This pricedifference, i.e. the profit rates of the English East India Company, could be increasedif the Indian cost price at which East Indian Company purchased goods from the Indianartisans, could be lowered. So long as there was a competitive market in India, that is,so long as the English East Indian Company was competing in the Indian market, withother East India Companies of the French o r the dutch and with other merchants ofIndian and Asian origin, the Indian artisans were in a good bargaining position. But inthe last decades of the eighteenth century the British gradually eliminated most of theircompetitors, in particular the French and the Dutch. Moreover, by virtue of theirmilitary power and , in some regions (e.g. Bengal from 1765), their political andadministrative position, the British established a hegemony which allowed them tobecome monopolists in the market.The English Company's purchase together with the purchases of the servants of thatcompany in their private capacity accounted for a very large portion of the marketedtextiles of superior quality in Bengal. As we all know, a monopolist can influence themarket t o his own advantage. In the last three decades of the eighteenth century thiswas the advantage which enabled the English traders to reduce the prices paid to thenative artisans in this country and thus t o reap high profits from sale in the Europeanmarket. This excessive exploitation of Indian artisans weakened the very basis of our


5/12

handicraft industries by reducing the artisan to a low level of income. It also destroyedthe possibility of accu mulation of resources to invest in the industry and to im prove itstechnology. A s we know, accum ulation of capital and a technological revolutionoccurred in England in the last decades of the eighteenth and early decades of thenineteen th centu ry. This Industrial Revo lution first of all wiped out the m arket forIndia's artisans in Eu rop e, because the econo mies of large scale pfoduc tion in the newEnglish factories mad e it impossible for artisanal products to c om pete with factoryproducts. By th e beginning of th e 19th century the stap le industrial exports, cottontextiles, began to decline and soon they ceased to be exported. Some other i tems, e.g.indigo and raw silk, continu ed to be expo rted- hough from 1813 t was no longer theEast India C ompany but private trade which became the agency for exports . Not onlywas the expo rt ma rket of the In dian artisans take n away by the foreign factories, butthe home market began to be invaded by imported factory products.This isthe process which has been called de-industrialisation since it is the reverse 8f theprocess of industrialisation.He re we may pay attention to the deb ate that has taken place on the question of de-industrialisation in India in course of the 19th century. Rom esh C. D ut t and Ma danMohan Malviya (in his note of dissent to th e Indian Industrial Com mission) used thestatistics of import to prove their point. The y showe d, for example, tha i import ofMa nche ster cloth increased in value from 96 lakh sterling in 1860 to 27crore sterling in1900. Som e recent auth ors, particularly Morris David M o m s, argue that this evidenceis not decisive; they argue tha t und er Pax Britanica the population increased; the percapita income increased, the sale of cloth increased due t o change in consumptionhabits, and thus it was possible for Indians t o buy mo re foreign cloth, leaving the m arketfor indigenous artisans unaffected. In shor t, Morris's argum ent is that th e mark etexpanded s o that i t was possible to acco mm odate both Manchester a nd Indian Weaver 'sproduce. Manche ster cloth, Morris main tained, did not displace indigenous weaver'scloth. This view of Morris is unacceptable because h e does not produce any evidence toprove increase in population a nd pe r capita income during the 19th century . The re isplenty of evidence put forward by recent econo mic historians like Sard a Raju forMadras , N.K. Sinha for Bengal , A.V. Raman Rao for Andhra, R.D . Choksey forMaharashtra and A.K. Bagchi for Bihar, etc. which lends support to the de-industrialisation thesis. Th e early nationalist economists did not have access to th esources and m ethdds used by these recent econom ic historians but th eir conclusionregarding de-industrialisation is confinned by the findings of later researches. In themiddle Gan getic region, according to Bagchi's estim ate, the industrial decline can bemeasured with some accuracy: th e weight of industry in the livelihood patte rn of th epeople was reduced by half from 1809-13 to th e census year 1901.Tha t the process of de-industrialisation continu ed upto th e last dec ade of the 19thcentury is established beyond question . Did th e growth of new industrial activities inthe last decade of the 19th century restore the balance? D enielTho rner ha s put forwardthe con troversial thesis tha t the census statistics available from 1881 do no t suggest thatde-industrialisation was in progress from 1881 o 1931. A t first sight, the census figuresindicate that the m ale work-force in agriculture increased from 65 % in 1881 ro 72% in1931, while the p roportion in industry declined from 16% in 1881 to 9 % in 1931. ButTh orne r believes that this categorisation was erroneous an d on e should lump toge theragricultural work forc e with ano ther category , general Labour's and likewise aggregateindustrial work-force with 'Trade'. If th at is do ne , the picture looks different. Th eincrease in the compoun ded categories ap pears to be far less in the primary sector (onlyabout 2% growth between 1881 and 1931). Similarly the decline in industry and tradeput tog ether is also much less (only about 3 % dec line in 1881-1931). Fur ther, T hor nerdismisses the da ta on female labour force on the ground that th e d ata collected wereinaccurate in the opinion of census officials. In this way Tho rner arrives at theconclusion that the 1881-1931 census does not show any evide nce of substantialde-industrialisation.In criticism of Th orn er, on e obvious point is that the process of de-industrialisation hadalready don e the dam age well before the census operation s began. Th e first reliable allIndia census was that of 1881.This much T hor ner is himself willing to conc ede.Secondly, he is perhaps wrong in dismissing the figuresreg arding em ployment ofwomen . T hese figures for 1881-1931 show a'n increase in emp loyment in Agricultureby


6/12

cdwislienand employment of women is quite significant, and it is likely that in case of decline inartisan's business the women of the household gave u p industrial work (to take u phousehold chores or agricultural labour) earlier than menfolk in th e artisan families.Ab ove a ll, ther e is the question : how reliable is the sectoral distribution of work-forceas an index of indu strialisation or its reverse? Th e crucial index is the p er capitaproductivity and the value of what is produced as a proportion of national produce, i .e .ratio to national income. J . Krishnamurthy has, on this ground cast doub ts upon th e useof demograph ic dat a, as in Thorn er 's argum ent, to answer the question , was therede-industrialisation?Lastly, we may note th at there was also an important trend of imperialist apologistswhich frankly adm itted the de-industrialisation of India as a fact but argued tha t it wasgood for bo th India and B ritain that the colony specialised in the production ofagricultural goods. A s late as 1911 Lord Jo hn M eynard Keynes wrote thatindustrialising India was neither possible nor desirable. Ind ia could , infact, attaingrea ter prosperity by exchanging agricultural products for all the industrial good s thatmay be n eeded through im ports from the W est. This view goes back to the classicaltheory of comparative advantage and international division of labour, assigning tocolonies like India the r d e of the agricultural farm of the industrialised imperialcountry . On e of the real achievements of the nationalist economists was to defeat thisview and t o establish in the political agenda of the freedo m struggle the econom icprogramme of India's industrialisation.2.3.2 Famines in Colonial IndiaIf colonialism meant d estruction of old industries did it mean th e growth of agriculturalprodu ction? Th e answer is probably negative on the whole. I t is decidedly negativewhen we consider per capita an d per acre productivity in food-grains from 1898 to 1947.As for the earlier fifty years, the repeated occurrence of current famines tell i ts ownstory.From th e middle of the 19th century a number of famines devastated Ind ia. In thefollowing figures we mention the famines which the gov ernment ackno wledge duringthis period.Famines in Colonial India

Bomb ay Presidency1853-556adras PresidencyRajputamaKutch1860-61

1862 DeccanBiharOrissa

1866-67 Northern Mad rasHyderabadMysore

Bombay Presidency1876-78 My sor eHyderabadMad ras Presidency1888-89 iris'ihar1896-974 a jputanaBomb ay Presidency1905-06- ombay Presidency1906-07- ihar1907-08


7/12

loss of life was at least 1crore an d 52 lakhs , and the to ta l number of famine-af fectedpeople was 39.7 crores .Th ese vast num bers indicate periods of subsistence cris is. T he im mediate ca use for thisundoubtedly was droughts an d cro p failure but th e roots of the crises lay in what w asthe "normal" rate of agrarian production. Stagnation in agricultural technology, failureof investment t o raise yield p er ac re, the dr ain of the agriculturis ts resources into thehand s of the reve nue interm ediaries and mon ey lenders an d dealers in agriculturalcomm odities were undoubtedly important contributing factors . The sparseness ofgovernment inves tments in i r r igat ion and o th er developmental inves tments , and th erapid rise in population from 1920's were also responsible for creating the colonialagricultural 'normalcy'. A significant index of the norma l situation in respect of foo dsupply is the p er capital availabili ty of food-grains in India. W e have three estimates inthis regard for the period 1901 to 1943. In these years , according to G eor ge Blyn'sestimate for Brit ish India, p er capita food-grain availabili ty declines from 0.23 ton t o0.16 ton. Acc ording to Shivasubramanian 's es timate for the whole undivided India thedecline was f rom 0 .2 ton t o 0 .14 ton . Accord ing to Alan Hes ton the decl ine was f rom0.17 ton (1901) to 0.16 ton (1946). Thus all the estim ates indicate that the supply of foodgrains declined in the last half-century of British rule thoug h they differ on th e exten tto which it occurred.2.3.3 Commercialisation of AgricultureAs we have alread y seen , the food-grain production did not improv e, but this was nott rue of some so-called 'cash crops ' . Both the total and per acr e output of non-food graincrops increased, and this was largely due t o increased de man d a nd ris ing prices of theseboth in the ex ternal and the in ternal market . T he mos t dram at ic increase of th is sor t wasthe C ott on Boom of the early 1860's which merits our special attention.Th e emancipation of the black s laves by Abra ham Lincoln and the consequent CivilW ar in U .S.A . led to a m assive short-fall in the w orld supply of cotton in 1860-64. Thisled to the increase in cotton prices , export of cotton from India , and th e growth oncotton cultivating acreage in India. This Cotton B oom brought th e Indian peasants inCo tton growing areas within the ambit of the w orld capitalis t system. The im portantexport housesof Bom bay, the wholesale traders in the bigcities , the broke rs and oth ermiddlem en in cotton exp ort trad e, down t o the level of the village baniawho advancedcredit to the peasant for cotton cultivation, all profited eno rmously from the Cotto nBoom . This profit , as well as the profit from the comm ercial crops developed evenearlie r , viz. opium and indigo. contributed to the accum ulation of capital in the handsof som e Indian businessmen. M ore important w as the fact that the C otton Boo mmark ed th e recruitment of India as a supplier of agricultural commodities and rawmaterial neede d by the industrialised West. T hu s i t complem ented the process ofde-industrialisation. Th e role of th e colony specialising in agriculture an d of th eindustrialised me tropolitan country in the We st were dem arcat ed clearly in theconte mpo rary theory of inte rnational division of labour. This was characteris tic notonly of India an d Eng land, but also of other colonies and metropolises in the s tage ofindustrial capitalist imperialism.Th e s tatis t ics of agricultural production indicate a substantial increase in non-foodgrains output while foodgrain product ion shows an oppos i te t rend . Th e per annumincrease in population in 1891-1947 was 0.67% while total food-grain productionincreased byonlyO.l I t % in this period. T he per acr e production o t food-grains decreasedby 0 .18% per an num. O n the o ther hand the increased demand in the market and therising prices of highly comm ercialised n on-fo od grain crops increased by 0.86% perannum and thei r to ta l ou tput by 1 .31% pe r annum . The non-food gra in crops wereprimarily cott on and jute but also included tobacco, sugarc ane, oilseeds etc.2.3.4. Impact of Commercialisation on Rural SocietyComm ercialisation of agriculture paved th e way for the generation of usury andmerchant capital in rural society and widened the levels of differentiation among thepeasantry . T he c ommo n cul t ivator ' s depe ndence o n the v i llage bania for advance ofcredit . for the m arket ing of his crop, for loans during lean seasons for subsis tenceincreased as commercialisation progressed. In thc pay ment of land revenue also themoney lender-cu m-trader played a n impo rtant role in supplying cash. Finally, the


8/12

village baniawas also an agent for the pene tration of the rural ma rket by the importedindustrial consum er goods, particularly M anchester cloth.While some of the p oore r peasants were raising crops for the m arket virtuallyhypothe cated in advance to th e money len der, the better-off section of the peasan trywas relatively free. Th e latter could store their goo ds, and wait for bette r prices thanwhat prevailed during the glut in the m arke t after harvest. Thejr could also cart theircrops to ma rkets in towns to obtain a bette r price than what the villagebania or i t inerantdallal offere d. Furtherm ore, they could m ake their own decision as to which crop togrow while th e poorest farm er was virtually forced t o raise crops as dema nded by thevillage bania. In some regions, the rich peasants themselves became money lenders topoo rer peasants an d thus the process of differentiation was accentuated .In course of this differentiation process and the op eratio n of money-trading capital, anincreasing num ber of peasants began losing their land and becoming 'de-pea santed'landless labourers. It m ust, howe ver, be noted that landless labourers had existed in thepre-colonial-period too (particularly in th e south of India in substantial numbers onaccount of servitude of some castes). It is the economic process of depeasanting a nd th esignificantly larger nu mb er of landless agriculturists which em erge as the characteristicfeatures of the colonial period.According to estimates based on t he 1931 census we get th e following picture of socialstrata in village India. A t the bo ttom of the pyramid were th e landless agriculturallabourers (including bonded labourers) accounting for 37.8% of agriculturists. The ,stratum above them were th e farmers with very small holdings of below 5 acres (9% )and various types of tenants-at-will and sh are croppers (24.3% ). T he layer aboveconsisted of t he better-off section of farme rs with land a bov e 5 acres in size (about25.3% ). Finally at th e narrow top of the pyramid w ere me mbers of the rent receivingclass, many of whom did not actually cultivate land themselves (3.6 %) . The conditionof the bonde d labo urers was th e worst: they worked all their life, and some times forgenerations, for the 'master'. Efforts to improve the co nditionof this class of peopleand th e tenan ts will be discussed later (Unit 29, Block 15).

1 Check Your Progress21) O n what grounds do M om s David M orris and Danial Thorner at tempt to disprovethe hypothesis of de-industrialisation? Do you a gree with their views? Write in th espace given below:

2) Read the following statements and mark right (d)r wrong (x) .i) J. Krishnamurthy feels that th e demographic data can answer the question ofde-industrialisation.ii) R.C. D utt a r s e d that there was no de-industrialisation in India.i ii) Th e frequent famines in the 19th Century cannot be explained by the un der-production of the food crops.

L iv) Comm ercialisation of Agriculture mean t a sudden increase in the cultivation ofcash crops.


9/12

3) Write f ive l ines eac h o n t he fo l lowing te rms:A ) C o t t o n B o o m

Irnprlnlism : ts Effects

B) In te rna t iona l Div is ion o f Lab our

2.4 MODERN INDUSTRY AND INDIAN CAPITALISTCLASS

Th e patte rn of industr ial capital ist imperialism included an agend a of action by thecolonial stat e for promoting t he developm ent of an econom ic infrastructure fo i theexploitat ion of the natural resources an d raw materials of the colony. We shall turn tothat aspect very so on. Suff ice i t to say that the se infrastructural develo pments.part icular ly the railways and transport system, created cond it ions of development notonly for foreign capital in som e sectors (e.g . jute factories, coal mines , tea an d coffeeplantations ) but also for indigenous capital . Th e lat ter kxten ded industr ial investmentf irst in cotton texti les, in the te eth of the oppo sit ion of Manche ster interests and th einimical tar iff policy of theB rit ish Ind ian Gov ernm ent. From 1854 when t he f irst Indianmill wasse t u p in Bom bay t il l the World W ar I the progres sof Indian industr ial capitalwas painfully slow and halt ing. I t was the W ar a nd the inter-war period which saw therapid developm ent a nd industr ial diversif ication of Indian Ca pital . This developme ntwas in part th e story of struggle against foreign capital ist dom ination ( mos t pronouncedin eastern India). It also involved a struggle against British business interests whichexercised powerful inf luence on policy-making in England a nd also against theunsympathetic British Indian Go vern men t. This would explain the e mergence of al l iancebetween the India n capital ist class and the nationalist leadersh ip wh o fully suppo rtednational capital .Within a colonial context the grow th of national capital was obviouslv subject to severelimitations. Th e potentials of colonial industr ial development were exceedingly l imited.Fro m Sh ivasubram anian 's est imate s of national incom e it is clear how small was theextent of industr ial growth even in the last f if ty years of Brit ish rule. O n the av erage thera t io o f indust ria l sec tor ' s share to th e Net Dome st ic Product was 12.7%0 in 1900-1904,13.6% in 1915-19, a n d 16.7% in 1940-44. Th at India vir tually remained wh ere it was.predomina ntly agricultural , is clear from the ratio of income generated in the primaryse c to r t o t h e t o t a l ND P : 63.6% in 1900-04, 59.6% in 1915- 19, 47.6'Y0 in 1940-44. T h eTertiary S ecto r alon e showed a str iking increase in i ts share: 23.7% in 1900-1904compared to 35.7% in 1940-44.In comm on with many ot her colonial and industr ially backw ard countr ies, India wascharacter ised by stagnation in th e levelof nat iona l income. In th e ear ly years of B r~t ishrule we have no index of national incom e. In the 1860's. a c co r di n g t o D a d a b h a ~Naoroji ' s calculation, the p er capita income of India was Rs. 20 p e r a n n u m . W e h a v ealready seen how Naoroji a nd others nationalists identif ied the Dra in of Wealth fromIndia as one of the causes of this poverty in India. A bou t this t ime, 1870 o be exac t , theper cap i ta income in England (Mitche l l and D eane ' s es t imate) was f 24.4 ster!irig. T hiswas equiva len t t o Rs . 568.T h e more recen t est imates of Shivasubram anian suggest that in the last half century ofBrit ish rule per capita income in India remaine d almos t stagnant. In 1900-04 it was


10/12

Rs. 52.2, in 1915-19 it who Rs. 57.3 and in 1940-44 it was Rs. 56.6 (at constant price of1938-39). This gives us an idea of the degree of underdevelopment and stagnation fromwhich colonial India suffered.

2.5 THE COLONIAL STATEThe political impact of colonialism and resistance to colonialism in course of thefreedom struggle is a subject to be dealt with later in this course (Block 2, 4 and 5). Weare concerned here only with some of the political aspects of the colonial process. Thecolonial state was obviously not devised for fashioning the economy of India in themanner demanded by British imperial interests; but it was the most importantinstrument in serving that purpose. The professed political ideology of late 19th andearly 20th century British rulers has been described as 'laissez faire' plus policeman.But departures from non-interventionism were frequent, and fundamental . So far as acolony like India was concerned the theory was that the country needed to be preparedthrough active intervention for making the 'civilizing mission' of the West effective.Hence, for example, the heavy governmental support to British private capital inIndian railways, in the form of guaranteed interest irrespective of profit and loss. Thiswas evidently beneficial t o British business interests. On the other hand laissez faire wasinsisted upon in the sphere of tariff policy: refusal to put any significant tax burden onimported Manchester cloth for instance, was good for British interests and bad for allIndian mill owners. Again laissez faire was invoked to absolve the government from anyintervention in trade in 'food-grains (including export of grains) during the famines inthe late 19th and early 20th centuries.The political structure in Britain ensured that important business interests couldinfluence policy-making in India through Parliament, the Secretary of State for Indiawho was a member of British Cabinet, the Governor-General, and the higherbureaucracy in India. Till World War- I in particular this influence was clearly visible.However, the necessity ofimaking some compromise between 'Home' pressures andIndia's needs increasingly moderated the policies of the British Indian Government inthe later period. The viability of rule over India, financial stability of the government,need to strike compromises with Indian capitalists and other important interests andnationalist pressures were some of the factors that modified British policies from the1920's onwards. Subjeat to such qualifications one can say that the colonial state was aserviceable instrument not so much for the 'modernisation' of Indian economy andsociety as for the colonialisation of India from the middle of the 19th century to 1947.

~ h d c k our Progress 31) How would you explain the alliance between the Indian capitalist class and thenationalist leadership? (Write in fifty words).

2) Write on the lines given below, the nature of the colonial state.


11/12

2.6 LETUS SUMUP IaprLtbm: ItSEIlatnTh e natu re of colonial rule and its impact o n the colony have b een analysed differentlyby different scholars. Th e Indian nat ionalist scholars l ike Dadab hai Naoroji , M . G .Ranade and R .C. D ut t spok e mainly about the Indian context and pointed out theimpact of the Brit ish rule on th e Indian econom y. They em phasised the drain of wealthan d de-indu strialisation as the ill-effects of the British rule. T he Eu rop ean s cholars onthe o the r hand , made a g eneral survey of colonial ism, th e world over an d l inked i t up .organically with th e structure of capitalism. Scholars like Ho bson, Hilferding, R osaLuxem burg and L enin considerably enhanced ou r understanding of colonial ism.O th er aspects of colonialism in India wer e the commercialisation of ag riculture and aslow and uneven pace of industrialisation. Indian economic advance was gearedtoward s the requ irem ents of colonialism an d the colonial State played a n active role inshaping the Indian economy so as to serve the imperial interests. It was preciselybecause of the unfavo urable B ritish policies toward s the Indian business interests thatled to a confrontat ion between th e colonial state and the Indian business groups,resulting in the lat ter joining the Indian N ational Mov ement.

2.7 KEY WORDSDalld: MiddlemanDe-peasanting:Th e process of land holding peasant losing their land an d becomingagricultural labourers.Differentiation: Brea k-u p of the peasantry into classes as a result of certain sectionsprospering at th e expense of oth ers within the sam e class.Demographic Data: Figures regarding pop ulat ion.Imperialist Apologists: Scholars with a softer attitude towa rds imperialism.They u nde r .played th e exploi tative aspect of imperial ism and tried to absolve i t from anyresponsibility for the econ omic degen eration of India.'Laissez Faire': Non-interventionism, or a policy of no intervention into the economicprocess of the coun try. Th e phrase plus policemen refer to the idea. of a state responsiblemainly for law and o rder, a nd refraining from economic intervention.Net Domestic Product (NDP):Cumulat ive National Produ ct from ind ustry, agricultureand the service sector.Output: Tota l volume of production.Per Acre Production: Produ ction divided by each acre of land und er the plough.Per Capita Income: Ne t National Incom e divided by populat ion.Per Capita Production:Th e rate of production after being divided by total population.Primary Sector: ~ ~ r i c u l t u r e ,ishery, animal husbandry an d forest-produce.Productivity: Producing capacity.Share croppers: A class of agriculturists who cult ivated an d managed oth er peoples 'l and and shared the c rop, in re turn.Tenants-at-will: Th e class of old peasant prop rietors, now turned into tenants o n theland of newly cre ated Zam indars who could now evict the former a t their will for fail ingto pay the rent .Tertiary Sector: Service Sector including trade and transport .Village Bania: Class of rural mo ney lend ers who also sometimes acted ds intermediariesbe tween the cult iva tors and th e m arket .


12/12

r s p r L I L r 9 C d a w h . d~ db=dQ 2.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESSEXERCISES -Check Your Progress11) (i ) V (iij x (iii) V (iv) x2) Read Sub-section 2.2 .23) Find out from Sub-section 2. 2. 2Check Your Pmgress21) Read Sub-section 2.3 .1 carefully and write the answer in your own language .2) (i) X (ii) X (iii) x (iv) V3) See Sub-section 2.3 .3Check Your Progress31) Find out horn Section 2. 42) Read Section 2.5 and write your own answer.

Documents

Unit-2 Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism.pdf