02.test-Ii (Modern India) Solutions

SELFSTUDYHISTORY.
COM ALL INDIA ONLINE HISTORY OPTIONAL TEST SERIES-2017
HISTORY OPTIONAL ONLINE TEST SERIES-2017

By: Selfstudyhistory.com
MODERN INDIA TEST-II

(SOLUTIONS)
© Selfstudyhistory.com
Copyright © by SELFSTUDYHISTORY.COM
Selfstudyhistory.com: Contact Number: 7011446954, Email ID: selfstudyhistory@gmail.com

SELFSTUDYHISTORY.COM ALL INDIA ONLINE HISTORY OPTIONAL TEST SERIES-2017
SECTION A
Q.1 (a) “Bengal united is power; Bengal divided will pull several different ways.” Comment.
Ans:
In the official note, Risley, the Home Secretary to the Government of India said, “Bengal united is
power; Bengal divided will pull several different ways”. This was in the context of the division of Bengal
in 1905 by Lord Curzon.
The provincial state of Bengal had an area of 189,000 sq. miles and a population of nearly 8 crores. It
included the Hindi-speaking regions of Bihar, the Oriya-speaking regions of Orissa as well as the
Assamese-speaking region of Assam, making it a huge administrative entity.
The Partition of Bengal in 1905 was made on October 16 by Viceroy Curzon. The former province of
Bengal was divided into two new provinces (1) “Bengal” (comprising western Bengal as well as the
province of Bihar and Orissa) and capital at Calcutta. It was to have 17 million Bengali and 37 million
Oriya and Hindi speaking people thus reducing Bengali to a minority in Bengal itself. (2) “East Bengal
and Assam” with a population of 31 million people and with its capital at Dhaka.
 The partition of the state intended to curb Bengali influence by not only placing Bengalis under
two administrations, but by reducing them to a minority in Bengal itself.
 With the declared objective of the partition as administrative ease, the real objective was
different. Lord Curzon wanted: ‘to split up and thereby to weaken a solid body of opponents’
to British rule. According to him: Bengal united was power, that power was to be broken by
partition. Calcutta was the centre from which the Congress party is manipulated throughout
the whole of Bengal and, indeed, the whole of India’. Therefore, Calcutta was to be ‘dethroned
from its place as the centre of successful intrigue’ and the path was to be cleared for the
growth of ‘independent centres of activity and influence’ such as Dacca.
 Curzon hoped to divide the population on religious grounds, quelling the Indian Independence
Movement. A cleavage would develop between the Hindus who were looked upon as a ‘solid
body of opponents’ to British rule, and the Muslims, won over by the offer of a ‘prepondering
voice’ in ‘Eastern Bengal and Assam’. The Hindu West was neatly balanced by the Muslim East.
 The reason for the Partition was purely political. The Hindus were in a better position in terms
of economic status, professional qualities etc., than the Muslims. During the pre-Sepoy Mutiny
period, section of Hindu traders greatly helped the British while their Muslim counterparts did
not. The British were angry. With the spread of Western education Hindus made a big way,
but the Muslims could not. A sense of deprivation crept in. Perhaps, the sense of deprivation
was engineered. When the discontentment grew in the beginning of this century, the British
capitalized on this sense of deprivation.
 Even Lord Minto, Curzon’s successor was critical of the way in which partition was imposed
disregarding public opinion saw that it was good political strategy; Minto argued that ‘from a
political point of View alone, putting aside the administrative difficulties of the old province, I
believe partition to have been very necessary.’
Hence, the partition was meant to foster another kind of division-this time on the basis of religion,
i.e. between the Muslims and the Hindus. The Indian Nationalist clearly saw the design behind the
partition and condemned it unanimously. The anti-partition and Swadeshi movement had begun.
MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Q.1 (b) Despite Panchsheel, continued differences between the two nations led to the Indo-Sino
War in 1962. Comment.
Ans:
Panchsheel was the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence between India and China signed in 1954
by Indian Prime Minister Nehru with China. Five principles were:
1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

2. Mutual non-aggression.
3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
5. Peaceful co-existence.
Jawaharlal Nehru based his vision of resurgent Asia on friendship between the two largest states of
Asia; his vision of was governed by the ethics of the Panchsheel, which he initially believed was shared
by China, came to grief after Indo-China War in 1962.
Background of Indo-China War:
India and China had boundary disputes China claimed 104,000 km² of territory over Indian territory
and demanded rectification of the entire border.
Boundary dispute in western part
The government of India used the Johnson Line as the basis for its official boundary in the west,
encompassing Aksai Chin. During the 1950s, China built a road connecting Xinjiang and western Tibet
which ran south of the Johnson Line through the Aksai Chin region claimed by India. The Indian
position, as stated by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was that the Aksai Chin was “part of the Ladakh
region of India for centuries”. The Chinese minister, Zhou Enlai argued that the western border had
never been delimited, that the Macartney-MacDonald Line, which left the Aksai Chin within Chinese
borders was the only line ever proposed to a Chinese government, and that the Aksai Chin was already
under Chinese jurisdiction.
Boundary dispute in eastern part
In 1959, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai wrote to Nehru, rejecting Nehru’s contention that the border was
based on treaty and custom and pointing out that no government in China had accepted as legal the
McMahon Line, which in the 1914 Simla Convention defined the eastern section of the border
between India and Tibet during British Rule. China did not consider Tibet sovereign so treaty settling
boundary invalid.
Asylum to Dalai Lama
Besides border disputes, the relations of China and India were further strained on the question of
giving asylum to Dalai Lama (spiritual head of the Tibetan people). Right from 1959 owing to large-
scale demolition of Buddhist monasteries and confiscation of lands, the Chinese had caused
discontent among the Tibetans. In the revolt of the Tibetans, certain insurgents together with Dalai
Lama to India. The entry of Dalai Lama was accepted. This infuriated China.

From 1959, in a process that accelerated in 1961, Nehru adopted the “Forward Policy” of setting up
military outposts in disputed areas of the Sino-Indian border. China attacked some of these outposts.
Amidst such tensions, the Chinese suddenly started a full-scale invasion in 1962. It was a rude shock
to Nehru and Panchsheel Principle. The Indian military was unprepared and also unequipped. Both
USA and the Soviet extended token help as they were busy with the Cuban Missile crisis.
India lost, and China withdrew to pre-war lines in eastern zone at Tawang but retained Aksai Chin.
Q.1 (c) Champaran was the first of three movements during 1917-18 that marked the entry of
Gandhi — and civil disobedience — in Indian politics. Elucidate.
Ans:
The successful struggle of the indigo cultivators of Champaran against European planters introduced
to India satyagraha — non-violent civil disobedience as a stratagem of mass politics that Gandhi had
experimented with earlier in South Africa.
Champaran Satyagraha
Champaran saw the earliest demonstration of the Gandhian political strategy. Around the early 19th
century, white planters had forced cultivators in this part of present-day northwest Bihar into
agreements known as teenkathia, under which they were obligated to grow indigo on 3/20ths of their
landholdings. To come out of this exploitative system, Gandhiji was approached by a Champaran man,
Raj Kumar Shukla, who managed ultimately to persuade him to visit the theatre of the indigo farmers’
struggle.
In Champaran, Gandhi was ordered to leave immediately — but he refused, telling the administration
that he would rather take the punishment for disobeying the law. This was a new manoeuvre, and the
government, not prepared to use force immediately, took a step back. The first round won, Gandhi
went about investigating the grievances of the peasants. Gandhiji went about, recording detailed
statements in the manner of modern commissions of inquiry.
He went on to present evidence collected from 8,000 farmers, and made out an irrefutable case for
the abolition of teenkathia and payment of compensation for illegally extracted dues. Over the next
few years, almost all planters went away from the area.
Ahmedabad Mill Strike
His next intervention — in the Ahmedabad mill workers’ stir — saw the use of another of his signature
political weapons: the fast. Mill-owners wanted to scrap a ‘plague bonus’, but workers argued it was
needed to make up for the wartime increase in the cost of living. Gandhi got the two sides to agree to
arbitration, but told workers to go on a strike after the mill-owners reneged. When the strike started
to flag, he went on a fast, telling the workers that if starvation was to be their lot, he would be the
first to face it. The real impact was on the mill-owners. The moral force of Gandhi’s action pressured
them to agree to arbitration by a tribunal. The strike ended, and the tribunal awarded a 35% raise —
the original demand of the workers.
Kheda Satyagraha

Gandhi’s third intervention in this phase was on behalf of farmers in Kheda district, whose appeals for
remission of land revenue had been denied despite the fact that drought had cut the yield to below
the one-fourth level fixed for full relief under the revenue code. As the peasants’ tussle waxed and
waned, the government secretly ordered recovery of revenue only from those who could pay — and
Gandhi, his object fulfilled, called off the agitation.
Champaran, Ahmedabad, Kheda brought forth a style of politics that would bring the Raj to its knees
and set a template for action in multiple future historical and geographical contexts. The elements at
its heart — were non-violent satyagraha, hartal, fast and prayer.
Q.1 (d) "After all we framed the constitution of 1935 because we thought it the best way to hold
India to the Empire."
Ans:
The Government of India Act 1935 was originally passed in August 1935 and was the longest British
Act of Parliament ever enacted by that time. The significance of the Government of India Act of 1935
can be best summed up in the words of the then Viceroy Lord Linlithgow himself: "After all we framed
the constitution of 1935 because we thought it the best way to hold India to the Empire.” This can be
explained through the following points:
 The Act of 1935 did not mention the granting of dominion status promised during the Civil
Disobedience movement. The federal part of the Act was designed to meet the aims of the
Conservative Party led Britain. Over the very long term, the Conservative leadership expected
the Act to lead to a nominally dominion status India, conservative in outlook, dominated by
an alliance of Hindu princes and right-wing Hindus which would be well disposed to place
itself under the guidance and protection of the United Kingdom.
 British Government had consciously chosen the federal structure because it "would act
primarily to protect Britain's interests rather than hand over control in vital areas. Its net
effect was to divert Congress attention to the provinces, while maintaining strong imperial
control at the centre.
 By giving Indian politicians a great deal of power at the provincial level, while denying them
responsibility at the Centre, it was hoped that Congress, the only national party, would
disintegrate into a series of provincial fiefdoms. Though the congress High Command was able
to control the provincial ministries and to force their resignation in 1939. The Act showed the
strength and cohesion of Congress and probably strengthened it.
 The Act tried to ensure that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring
down the government This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every
possible minority the right to separately vote for candidates belonging to their respective
communities (separate electorate), and by making the executive theoretically, but not
practically, removable by the legislature.
 If any change happened at all, as B.R. Tomlinson has pointed out: "The apex of the system of
imperial control moved from London to Delhi.” The viceroy was now to enjoy many of the
powers previously exercised by the secretary of state and thus Indo-British relationship was
provided with a new orientation that would best protect essential imperial interests.
 B.R. Tomlinson said: “The progress of constitutional advance in India is determined by the
need to attract Indian collaborator to the Raj.” The Act aimed at winning the support of

moderate nationalists since its formal aim was to lead eventually to a Dominion of India
which, as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931 virtually equaled independence.
 The Act aimed at winning Muslim support by conceding most of Jinnah’s Fourteen Points.
 The Act had retained British control of the Indian Army, Indian finances, and India’s foreign
relations for another generation.
Q.1 (e) “Gandhi related the abstract concept of independence to certain specific grievances; but of
all grievances, salt tax seemed to be the most crucial one for many reasons.” Explain.
Ans:
In December, 1929, Lahore Congress was held with Jawaharlal Nehru as the president. Many leaders
had reservations about starting a movement for full independence, particularly in view of the rising
wave of violence spearheaded by revolutionary leaders like Bhagat Singh and others. In Lahore,
Gandhi’s preferred resolution was passed in spite of a lot of opposition. It defined the Congress goal
as full independence or "purna swaraj" and proposed that as a preliminary to start a civil disobedience
movement to achieve it, a boycott of legislature would begin immediately. The All India Congress
Committee (AICC) was authorized to start a civil disobedience movement at an appropriate time. But
Gandhi had not as yet been able to convince all:
 Muslim members of the Congress, like Dr. Ansari, were unhappy, as communal unity they
thought was an essential precondition for the success of a civil disobedience movement.
 The Muslim League condemned the movement as a devise to establish Hindu Raj.
 Sikh support had also shifted away from Congress. Non Congress Hindus, like the Hindu
Mahasabha and the Justice Party in Madras declared their opposition to civil disobedience.
 Business groups were apprehensive about the uncertain possibilities of the Lahore resolution.
 Young Congressmen were pressing for more militant action.
Under the circumstances, the celebration of the "Independence Day" on 26 January 1930 evoked little
enthusiasm, except in Punjab, UP, Delhi and Bombay. Gandhi had to devise a strategy to break out of
this impasse and impute a broader meaning into the word 'independence', as opposed to its narrower
political connotation that had such a divisive impact.
On 31 January 1930 Gandhi therefore announced an eleven-point ultimatum for Lord Irwin; if these
demands were met by 11 March, he declared, there would be no civil disobedience and the Congress
would participate in any conference. It was a compromise formula, which included:
 Six "issues of general interest", like reduction of military expenditure and civil service salaries,
total prohibition, discharge of political prisoners not convicted of murder, reform of the CID
and its popular control and changes in the arms act;
 Three "specific bourgeois demands", like lowering of the rupee-sterling exchange rate,
protective tariff on foreign cloth and reservation of coastal traffic for Indian shipping
companies; and
 Two "basically peasant themes", i.e., 50 per cent reduction of land revenue and its subjection
to legislative control and abolition of salt tax and government salt monopoly.
It was a mixed package to appeal to a wide cross-section of political opinions and unite the Indians
once again under one overarching political leadership. Gandhi thus related the abstract concept of

independence to certain specific grievances; but of all grievances, salt tax seemed to be the most
crucial one for many reasons:
 Salt affected all sections of the population and had no divisive implication. The salt tax was a
deeply symbolic choice, since salt was used by nearly everyone in India. An item of daily use
could resonate more with all classes of citizens than an abstract demand for greater political
rights. Explaining his choice, Gandhi said, “Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest
necessity of life.”
 It did not threaten government finances or any vested interests and therefore would not
alienate any of the non-Congress political elements, nor would provoke government
repression.
 And it could be made into a highly emotive issue with great publicity value.
Hence, when the Congress Working Committee gave Gandhi the responsibility for organising the first
act of civil disobedience, Gandhi’s plan was to begin civil disobedience with a satyagraha aimed at the
British salt tax leading to the Salt Satyagraha.
Q.2 (a) “The growth of territorial empire in India was neither planned nor directed from Britain.”
Critically Analyze.
Ans:
Imperialist historians have always argued that the growth of territorial empire in India was neither
planned nor directed from Britain.
P.J. Marshall’s views (1968)
1. Until 1784 (i.e., the passage of Pitt’s India Act), there was no conscious or consistent British
policy for political conquest in India. Authority at home remained divided between the Court
of Directors of the East India Company and the tenuous regulatory power of the government,
with no one seemingly interested in acquiring territories in India until 1784, although by then
a large empire had already been acquired.
2. The growth of territorial empire in India was neither planned nor directed from Britain, it was
the initiative of the Company officials operating in India which decided the course of action,
despite the absence of any policy directives from London in favor of conquest and
colonization.
3. Though there was considerable commercial expansion during the early eighteenth century
and the obvious connection between trade and empire was also hard to ignore, it was the
political fragmentation and instability following the decline of the Mughal power that actually
facilitated the territorial expansion of the Company. The English were only responding to
these developments and exploiting the opportunities that came their way. In other words, it
was developments in the periphery, rather than impetus from the metropole, which thrust
upon the Company a career of territorial expansion in India.
Lord Seely’s views
British historian Lord Seely had coined the famous phrase that India was conquered “in a fit of absent-
mindedness” in his book. ‘The Expansion of Britain’ in 1883. This can be justified by the following facts:

1. British conquest of India was unique as British never intended to rule over India. British
conquests arose mostly due to the circumstances rather than any planning.
2. The conquest began when British and French both tried to get hold of lucrative Trade from
Indian Sub-continent. This competition led to Anglo-French Rivalry and thus British got more
involved in the politics of Indian Kingdoms. The taste of success in Carnatic Wars have made
them bold and in 1757 challenged Nawab of Bengal. With the help of greedy members of
Nawab’s court, overnight Company found itself in indirect control of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
3. Overnight and without planning the British East India Company found itself in control of
Bengal, a region with large population, fertile land and an annual revenue of £2 million. Large
farmland was used for the production of crops that brought the most profit: tea & cotton for
England, and opium for the growing drug traffic with China. Now Britain had the resources to
do what no other European power could accomplish, namely the conquest of the whole
subcontinent. They would do it one step at a time, usually in response to threats against what
they already had.
4. Later, Britain would take the Suez Canal, Australia, Burma, Malaya, and a third of Africa, all in
the name of defending their Indian interests, and they would meddle in the Balkans, the
Middle East and Tibet for the same reason. In short, “The Empire on Which the Sun Never
Sets” was created just to secure its most valued colony: India.
5. The Company could have conquered all of India before 1800, but it avoided territorial
acquisitions much of the time. The Company’s first concern was always profit for its
shareholders at home, and expensive military operations were bad for business; the
government found that military action was politically unpopular unless done in reaction to
threats from rivals like France or Russia.
6. Later the British government was becoming more interested in ruling India directly, especially
after the loss of the American colonies.
Porter’s Arguments
In the book, The Absent Minded Imperialists: What the British Really Thought About Empire, Bernard
Porter gave following arguments in the favor of absent mindness of British Empire:
1. Britain was a complex and divided society, with cleavages along class, religious, and political
lines. The empire was so vast, varied, and distant that there was no single, unitary “imperial
culture” that shaped British society and thought.
2. Before the 1880s, only a very small proportion of the population had any direct experience
with the empire overseas. References to Britain’s overseas empire rarely appeared in the
newspapers, art, literature.
3. Most history textbooks ignored the empire completely and did not even mention India. At
least one of those that did was scathing about the East India Company, describing it as “a band
of robbers”.
4. Contrary to the claim that an “imperial culture” in Britain impelled its overseas expansion,
Porter concludes that “empires arise for mainly material reasons.”
Counter Views
While it is difficult to deny the importance of “sub-imperialism” of the men on the spot or pressures
generated at the periphery as driving forces behind territorial conquests, there are telling evidence of
engagement of the metropole in the project of empire building in India.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that from the very beginning use of force to promote trade
was an axiom in the practices of the East India Company; its trade was always armed trade. And
despite the apparent separation between the Company and the state, the two were intimately
interlinked in promoting England’s diplomatic goals, as the Company itself owed its privileges, and
indeed very existence, to royal prerogative.
The relationship between the Crown and the Company was mutually beneficial. In 1660 the Company
celebrated the restoration of the Stuart monarchy by offering £3,000 worth of silver plates to His
Majesty. In 1661 Cromwell’s charter was replaced by one signed by the king and in gratitude the
Company directors voted in 1662 a loan of £10,000 for the King. In the subsequent years more loans
totaling £150,000 were offered and more charters with additional privileges followed. “King and
Company understood one another well.”
The initial history of the Presidency system in India is also indicative of Crown’s involvement in the
colonization of the country. The island settlement of Bombay, which Charles II received from the
Portuguese crown in 1661 as dowry for his bride, was handed over to the East India Company in 1668
for a token annual rental of £10 and it was here that in 1687 the Presidency headquarters of the west
coast was shifted from Surat.
The Company had to depend on the successive governments in London for various matters, and the
latter was ever ready to provide it in exchange for hefty subscriptions to the state exchequer. There
were always a few MPs with East Indian interests and the ministers used the Company’s resources for
expanding the scope of their patronage.
The Company was also an important element in the city politics of London, about which the
government was always keenly concerned. There had been government interventions in the
Company’s affairs in 1763 and 1764, paving the way for a parliamentary intervention in 1766, over the
rights of the state to the revenues of the territories conquered with the help of the royal army. The
result was the Company agreeing to pay £400,000 to the government annually.
Thus, right from the beginning, the British state participated in and profited from the empire; it is
difficult to argue that it was acquired “in a fit of absence of mind”. One could, however, say that the
empire was acquired “without the national cognizance”, by a “small number of Englishmen who had
not the least illusion about what they were doing”.
Q.2 (b) “When I lay the foundation stone here of this Nagarjuna Sagar, to me it is a sacred ceremony.
This is the foundation of the temple of humanity in India, a symbol of new temples that we are
building all over India.” In the light of the given statement, explain Nehru’s ‘temple of Modern India’
and the steps taken to build ‘temple of Modern India’? Also comment on the change in Nehru’s
thinking about big dams as a ‘Temple of India’ later.
Ans:
The given statement is Nehru’s quote from when he laid the foundation stone for the Nagarjuna Sagar
dam in 1955. Though it was while speaking at Bhakra and Nangal in 1954 that Nehru coined the famous
“Temples of Modern India” phrase. In general term, he had described public sector enterprises (PSEs)
as ‘temples of modern India’.

They were called ‘Modern Temples’ because:
1. PSEs, working in areas like dams, steel and power plants were conceived as instruments to
bring socio-economic transformation of the country. It would result in the generation of
electricity, would provide water for irrigation to the farmers, supply water to household and
industries. Main purpose of launching multipurpose river projects in India was to combine
development of agriculture and village economy with rapid industrialisation and urbanisation.
2. They were important for the nation building and self-reliance.
Following steps were taken in these directions:
1. India’s first Five Year Plan provided for three major hydroelectric projects — the Bhakra
Nangal dam in Punjab, the Hirakud dam on the Mahanadi in Orissa and the Nagarjuna Sagar
dam on the Krishna River in Andhra Pradesh.
2. Iron and Steel Plants were established in Bhilai, Durgapur, Rourkela and Bokaro.
3. Industry was made priority area in the second five-year plan.
4. Industry Policy Resolution 1956 defined areas for public and private sector.
Important objectives of building these modern temples were to create infrastructure, absorb
technology, encourage innovation, generate employment, solving socio-economic problems etc.
To fulfill these objectives, ‘temples of modern India’ were not just limited to building dams and plants
but also included creating institutions of higher learning particularly scientific institutions. Without
these institutions, it was not possible to create highly trained manpower, scientists, engineers etc. to
work in PSEs or to contribute in any other way in building modern India and socio-economic
transformation of India. This was also necessary for self-reliance.
Following important steps were taken in this direction:
1. Nehru himself assumed the chairmanship of Centre for Science and Industrial Research and
pioneered the establishment of network of national laboratories, starting with National
Physics Laboratory in 1947 itself.
2. Department of Scientific Research was created under Nehru.
3. Scientific Policy Resolution was passed in 1958.
4. In 1952, first of the five Institutions of Technology (IITs) on the pattern of MIT was established
at Kharagpur. Other four were established at Delhi, Kanpur, Madras, and Bombay.
5. Along with Homi J Bhabha, Nehru played an important role in laying down Nuclear policy for
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Atomic Energy Commission was set up in 1948 with
Bhabha as chairman.
6. India also laid foundations in Space research by creating Indian National Committee.
7. Institutions like AIIMS, IIMs, DRDO, ISRO, CSIR, IARC, IISc were established with a futuristic
vision and have contributed in meeting the challenges of society by providing world class
engineers, doctors, managers, scientists and agriculturists. They have resulted in India’s world
class strength in modern technologies.
Change in Nehru’s views on big dams as a ‘Temple of Modern India’:

Though Nehru changed his views on dams. Speaking to the Central Board of Irrigation and Power in
November 1958, Jawaharlal Nehru said that idea of doing big undertakings or doing big tasks for the
sake of showing that we can do big things is not a good outlook at all and it was the small irrigation
projects, the small industries and the small plants for electric power which will change the face of the
country, far more than a dozen big projects in half a dozen places.
Nehru who was an enthusiast for large projects, who once celebrated big dams as the "temples" of
modern India, dams started contemplating more democratic and more scientific alternatives.
What made Nehru change his mind? There were no anti-dam movements then,
no satyagraha or dharnas by peasants threatened with displacement. Reasons were the following:
 As he grew older, Nehru tended to think more of Mahatma Gandhi; perhaps it was his
mentor's insistence on the rights of the "last man" that prompted his rethink.
 More likely, it was the evidence of the suffering accumulated over a decade of commissioning
and building big dams. Too many people had made too large a sacrifice for what was, in the
end, not too great a benefit.
 Besides, these massive schemes were already generating huge amounts of corruption.
 As a democrat, Nehru was attentive to the rights of the lowly and vulnerable. As a scientist,
he was open to changing his mind in the face of new evidence.
Thus, this once-great proponent of large dams started contemplating more democratic and more
scientific alternatives.
Q.2 (c) Critically examine the reasons for non-existence of Permanent settlement in other parts of
India that were annexed by East India Company in 19th century?
Ans:
The extension of the British Empire in Deccan and South India necessitated a new type of
administrative organisation based on different systems of land revenue settlement. It was under these
circumstances that the shortcomings of the Zamindari settlement of Bengal were vigorously debated
and it was highlighted that the expectations from the system had not been fulfilled.
In fact, Permanent Settlement was introduced with the expectation that it would confer certain
benefits on the Government in the following manner:
1. So far as the financial part was concerned, the land revenue demand was fixed at the highest
pitch that had ever been reached. The share of the state was fixed at 89% of the estimated
rent of the land
2. The Government was saved from the fluctuation of its income and assured certain steady and
ample revenue for both its commercial and administrative needs.
3. There was the additional financial advantage arising from the abolition of the entire revenue-
collecting machinery consisting of Tehsildars, Quanungoes, Patwaris and other revenue
officers.
4. As regards the political advantages, the zamindars possessed great powers during the Mughal
rule. In addition to their duty of revenue collection, they exercised magisterial and executive
authority. The political powers were taken away from them. Their political authority and
power of creating trouble disappeared

However, the above mentioned expectations were not fulfilled and the failure of Zamindari resulted
in shortfall in collection of the land revenue and the landlords, as was hoped, did not prove to be
warm and zealous supporters of the government.
 Immediately after the Permanent Settlement a struggle commenced between the local
governments and the zamindars. Instead of co-operating in the matters of administration, the
latter embarrassed the government in all possible ways. The zamindari areas suffered from
law and order problems and many a times zamindars promoted and connived in criminal
activities.
 Further, it was also mentioned that as a result of the working of the system, there was
loosening of the bond between the government and the people. So long as the rents were
paid regularly by the Zamindar, the Government left him free to do what he liked and the
collector remained in the background. There was lack of knowledge of the interior and of real
contact with the masses. This adversely affected government's capacity to control the country
and its authority was weakened.
 Another disadvantage of the system was that it deprived the state of a share in the increase
of rent. The entire unearned increment was handed over to the Zamindar and the settlement
favoured a handful of landholders, completely ignored the interest of vast mass of peasants,
whose resentment and dissatisfaction seemed to evoke no sympathy.
 There was absence of sizable zamindari class in Madras Presidency. So Permanent settlement
system could not be introduced here. Thomos Munroe also believed that the British empire
needed unified concept of sovereignty and ryotwari system could provide foundation for that
by eliminating overmighty poligars who usurped sovereignty as soon as central authority
declined.
 Under the Permanent settlement system company was a financial loser in long run as the
revenue to be paid remained fixed but expenses of company rose exponentially due to
engagement in continuous state of war.
These factors explain the reason for non-existence of Permanent settlement in other parts of India
that were annexed by East India Company in 19th century
Q.3 (a) What led to the Commercialisation of agriculture? How it impacted the Rural India?
Ans:
Commercialisation of agriculture is a phenomenon where agriculture is governed by commercial

consideration i.e. certain specialised crops began to be grown not for consumption in village but for
sale in national and even in international market.
Commercialization of agriculture indicated a commercial revolution. But this was devoid of any
support from any technological revolution. Owing to true the healthy benefits which agriculture and
associated fields would have enjoyed were lacking.
The following factors led to the commercialization of agriculture:
 The new land tenure system introduced in form of permanent settlement and Ryotwari
Settlement had made agricultural land a freely exchangeable commodity. The Permanent
settlement by giving ownership right to the zamindars created a class of wealthy landlords;
they could make use of this ownership right by sale or purchase of land. Further, the

agriculture which had been way of life rather than a business enterprise now began to be
practiced for sale in national and international market.
 Moreover, crops like cotton, jute, sugarcane, ground nuts, tobacco etc. which had a high
demand in the market were increasingly cultivated. The beginning of the plantation crops like
Tea, coffee, rubber, indigo etc. heralded a new era in agricultural practices in India. These
were essentially meant for markets and thus commercialization of agriculture took to new
heights with the expansion of the British rule.
 The political unity established by the British and the resultant rise of the unified national
market was an important factor which led to the commercialization of agriculture. Further,
the spread of money economy replaced the barter and agricultural goods became market
items.
 The colonial subjugation of India under the British rule reduced India to the supplier of raw
materials and food grains to Britain and importer of British manufactured goods. The gaining
of speed of Industrial Revolution in England led to the production of more and more
commercial crops to satisfy the demand for raw materials by the British industries.
 The enlargement and expansion of international trade and the entry of British finance capital
also belted commercialization of agriculture. British policy of one-way free trade also acted as
sufficient encouraging factor for commercialization.
 The American Civil War also indirectly encouraged commercialization of agriculture in India:
The British cotton demand was diverted to India. The demand of cotton was maintained even
after the civil war ceased because of the rise of cotton textile industries in India.
 The peasants went in for growing commercial crops to pay back the interests due to money
lenders in time.
 The replacement of custom and tradition by competition and contract also led to the
commercialization of Indian agriculture
 Better means of communication (equipped with rapid development of railways and shipping)
made trade in agricultural products feasible, especially over long distances. The emergence of
grain merchants was a natural adjunct to this and greatly facilitated agricultural trade.
Impact of the commercialization of agriculture on rural India
The commercialization of agriculture had mixed effects.
Negative impact
 Normally speaking, it should have acted as a catalyst in increasing agricultural productivity.

But, in reality this did not happen due to poor agricultural organization, obsolete technology,
and lack of resources among most peasants. It was only the rich farmers; who benefited and
this in turn, accentuated inequalities of income in the rural society.
 The poor peasant was forced to sell his produce just after harvest at whatever prices he could
get as he had to meet in time the demands of the government, the landlord, the money lender
and his family members’ requirements. This placed him at the mercy of the grain merchant
and/or money lender, who was in a position to dictate terms and who purchased his produced
at much less than the market price. Thus, a large share of the benefit of the growing trade in
agricultural products was reaped by the merchant, who was very often also the village money
lender. The commercialization of agriculture in India by the British was also one of the
important causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people.

 Commercialisation resulted in reduced area under cultivation of food crops due to the
substitution of commercial non-food grains in place of food grains. Between 1893-94 to 1945-
46, the production of commercial crops increased by 85 percent and that of food crops fell by
7 percent. This had a devastating effect on the rural economy and often took the shape of
famines.
 The commercial revolution in agriculture led to the linking of the agricultural sector to the
world market. Price movements and business fluctuations in the world markets began to
affect the fortunes of the Indian farmer to a degree that it had never done before. The farmer
in his choice of crops attached greater importance to market demand and price than his home
needs. The peasant class got adversely affected owing to imbalances in market condition.
 Commercialization of agriculture adversely affected self-sufficiency of village economy and
acted as major factor in bringing the declining state in rural economy.
 The commercialization of agriculture was a forced and artificial process for the majority of
Indian peasants. It was introduced under coercion of the British and not out of the incentive
of peasantry at large. The peasantry went for cultivation of commercial crops under duress.
He had to pay the land revenue due to the British government in time. Moreover, he had to
grow commercial crop on a specified tract of his land under the oppression of planters. The
oppression of Indian peasants at hands of European which found expression in the famous
Indigo revolt in 1859.
Positive Impacts of Commercialization of Agriculture
 Regional specialization of crop production based on climatic conditions, soil etc., was an
outcome of the commercial revolution in agriculture. Deccan districts of Bombay presidency
grew cotton, Bengal grew jute and Indigo, Bihar grew opium, Assam grew tea, Punjab grew
wheat, etc.
 Commercialisation encouraged social exchange and it made possible the transformation of
Indian economy into capitalistic form.
 Commercialisation linked India with world economy. It led to the growth of high level social
and economic system and integration of economy. The commercialisation of agriculture led
to growth of national agriculture and agricultural problem acquired national form.
Q.3 (b) “In second half of the nineteenth century, many factors combined together to foster the
growth and development of local self-government institutions.” Analyze the given statement and
trace the development of the local self-government in Indian in the nineteenth century.
Ans:
After 1857 many factors combined together which fostered the growth and development of local self-
government institutions:
 Financial difficulties led the government to further decentralize administration by promoting

local self-government through municipalities and district boards.
 The industrial Revolution gradually transformed European economy and society in the 19th
century. India increasingly contact with Europe and new modes of imperialism and economic
exploitation made it necessary that some of the European advances in economy, sanitation,
and education should be transferred in India.
 The rising Indian nationalist movement demanded the introduction of modern improvements
in civic life. Thus the need for the education of masses, sanitation, water supply, better roads,

and other civil amenities was increasingly felt. The Government could no longer afford to
ignore it. But its finances were already in disorder due to heavy expenditure on the army and
the railways. It could not increase its income through new taxes as the burden of the existing
taxation was already very heavy on the poor and further addition to it was likely to create
discontent against the Government.
 On the other hand, the Government did not want to tax the upper classes. But the authorities
felt that the people would not mind paying new taxes if they knew that their proceeds would
be spent on their own welfare. It was therefore decided to transfer local service like
education, health sanitation, and water supply to local bodies who would finance them
through local taxes.
 Many Englishmen had pressed for the formation of local bodies on another ground also. They
believed that associating Indians with the administration in some capacity or the other would
prevent their becoming politically disaffected. This association could take place at the level of
local bodies without in any way endangering British monopoly of power in India.
 The decentralization in legislation as contemplated in 1861 was also a factor which
encourages the growth of local self-Government.
 The recommendation of Royal Army Sanitary Commission regarding the immediate
improvement of the unhealthy conditions of the towns necessitated the policy of meeting
local services by local taxes.
In short, all the above factors encouraged the growth of local self-government institutions in the
country. Consequently, in pursuance of the above policy many Acts like the Town Improvement Act
were passed in Madras, Bengal, Punjab, C.P. and other provinces.
Lord Mayo’s Resolution of 1870 on financial decentralization
It was Lord Mayo, who encouraged the Local-self institutions. In his resolution of 1870 to laid down
that the funds meant to be spent on education, sanitation and public works should be controlled by
the elected members of the local bodies. Consequently, new Municipal Acts were passed in several
province during 1871-74 A.D. The Bengal District Board Cess Act, 1871 was the first step towards
provision of local self-government in rural Bengal. Similar acts were passed in Madras, North-Western
Provinces and the Punjab.
By the end of the year 1882 A.D. the local institutions were vested with more powers and
arrangements were made for the election of their members. The number of local bodies grew
considerably in all the provinces but their progress was not so conspicuous as in Central Provinces.
Lord Ripon’s Resolution of 1882
Lord Ripon is said to be the father of Local Self-Government and decentralization of administration in
India. He was broadminded and a generous person. He wanted to associate Indians in task of
administration and so he took certain important steps in order to bring about the development of
Local Self-Government.
In 1882 by Lord Ripon’s Government a resolution laid down the policy of administering local affairs
largely through rural and urban local bodies, a majority of those members would be non-officials.
These non-official members would be elected by the people wherever and whenever officials felt that
it was possible introduce election. The resolution permitted the election of a non-official as a chairman

of the local bodies. Provincial Acts were passed to implement this resolution. But the elected members
were in a minority in all the district boards and in many of the municipalities. They were moreover
elected by a small number of voters since the right to vote was severely restricted. District officials
continued to act as presidents of the district boards.
Nonofficial gradually became chairman of municipal committee. The government also retained the
right to exercise strict control over the activities of the local bodies and to suspend and supersede
them at its own discretion.
The result was that except in the presidency city of Kolkata, Madras and Bombay, the local bodied
functioned like departments of the Government and were in no way good examples of local self-
government. All the same the politically conscious Indians welcomed Ripon’s resolution and worked
actively in these local bodies with the hope that in time they could be transformed into effective
organs of local self-government.
The closing decades of the nineteenth was a period of imperialism, and the high priest of that creed,
Lord Curzon, actually took steps to increase official control over the local bodies.
Q.3 (c) Vivekananda became the "patron prophet" for a whole generation of extremist leaders and
militant revolutionaries.
Ans:
Ramakrishna's catholicity was projected as an essence of Hinduism and became for his disciple,
Vivekananda, a ground for claiming the superiority of Hinduism over all other religions. It was
Vivekananda who infused into this discourse a missionary zeal. He condemned the other reform
movements as elitist and invoked the ideal of social service. The best way to serve god, he emphasized,
was to serve the poor people. He founded therefore the Ramakrishna Mission in 1897 as a
philanthropic organisation.
Vivekananda introduced the idea of an "alternative manliness", which combined Western concepts of
masculinity with the Brahmanic tradition of spiritual celibate ascetism
Following factors made it possible for the revivalists, extremist leaders and militant revolutionaries
wanted to appropriate him as they wanted to legitimize any defense of Hindu traditions as a
respectable and acceptable response to the challenge of Western civilizational critiques:
 He drew inspiration from the Vedantic tradition,

 Followed some of the orthodox Hindu rituals,
 Exhibited an intrinsic faith in the glories of Hindu civilization and
 Nurtured a belief that it had degenerated in recent times,
 His evocation of Hindu glory mixed with patriotism, which sought to restore the masculinity
of the Indian nation denied to them by their colonial masters, had a tremendous impact on
the popular mind.
His message was misused and misinterpreted to give a revivalist slant to nationalism in Bengal. To
describe him as a revivalist is to ignore the "universalistic" aspects of his teachings:

 His evocation of the glories of a Hindu past was popularised, while his trenchant
condemnation of the evils of Hinduism was conveniently forgotten.
 His philanthropic activities were hardly ever emulated;
 His criticism of the Brahmanical and gender oppression was scarcely ever taken seriously.
Q.4 (a) Trace the development of the famine policy of the British in India. How far commercialization
of agriculture was responsible for famine?
Ans:
Famines under the company’s rule:
During the rule of the East India Company India suffered in one part of another from twelve famines
and four severe scarcities. The first of these was Bengal Famine of 1769-70 which claimed a third of
the population of the province. No significant relief measures were taken rather the Company servants
made large profits by buying up rice and retailing it at high prices.
In 1784, a severe famine afflicted the northern India. During the Madras, famine of 1792 the state
opened the relief works for famine stricken.
During 1803, Famine in north western provinces and Oudh the state granted the remissions of the
revenue, gave loans and advances to land owners.
In 1837, there was a severe famine in upper India. Public works were opened at several centers.
However, the work of relief was left in charitable public.
Hence under the East India Company, no attempt was made to formulate any general system of
famine relief or prevention.
Famine under the crown administration- (1858-1947)
Under the crown there were ten severe famines besides a large number of scarcities. The transfer of
power from the company to the crown and the economic developments of the later half the
nineteenth century like the extension of railways and other means of communications, growth of
overseas trade changed the complexion of the problem. The states also realized its responsibility for
expansion of irrigation facilities, enactment of agrarian legislation and adoption of preventive
measures, as well as formulation of famine relief policy to meet possible famines. The famine policy
took its shape after recommendations by various committees:
1. Colonel Baird Smith Committee-: 1860-61- During Famine in Delhi and Agra region in 1860-
61- It was first committee on Famine.
2. George Campbell Committee: 1866- During famine in Orissa in 1866
3. Richard Stratchy Commission- during Famine in UP, Punjab, Bombay and Madras in 1876-78-
By Lytton- Report in 1880- recommendations: (a) Formulation of Famine Code, (b)
suspension/ Remission of Land Revenue, (c) Duty of States to offer relief, (d) Collection of
information about condition of peasants- This committee provided background for Family
Policy:
4. (a) Creation of Famine Fund (b) Incorporation of a New Head in Budget: Famines relief and
Insurance (c) Provision of Rs.15 million every year for this purpose

5. Formulation of Famine Code in 1883- It was implemented in 1886- It had four major parts: (a)
Part 1- Precaution during normal times, (b) Part II- relief campaign, (c) Part III – Duty during
relief work (d) Part IV: Division of famine affected areas.
6. James Lyall Commission-1898- By Eligin – During famine in almost all provinces in 1896-1897
7. Anthony Macdonnel Commission- 1900- By Curzon- During famine in almost all provinces in
1899-1900- Important recommendations: (a) Appointment of Famine Commissioner, (b)
Opening of Agricultural Banks, (c) Improvement of Irrigation facilities, (d) Creation of better
transport facility, (e) Revision of famine Code, (f) Introduction of moral strategy
8. Colin Scott Commission- 1901 – By Curzon- For improvement of irrigation facility
9. Moral Scott Commission- was put into practice during famine 1907-08
10. John Woodhed Commission – 1943-44- During famine in Bengal in 1942-43- Important
recommendations: (a) Creation of All India Food Council, (b) Increase in production of food
Crops, (c) Amalgamation of department of Food and Agriculture.
How far commercialization of agriculture was responsible for famine?
The process of commercialization of agriculture resulted in the substitution of commercial crops for
food crops. The changeover to cash crops discouraged the cultivation of poor men’s food crops like
jowar, bajra or pulses. The effect of this development on the overall food situation of the country was
a tragic one which is said to be resulted in famines. The famine of Orissa and Bengal in 1866 bore
testimony to this process of substitution of crops.
It is still an open issue whether the expansion for commercial agriculture in India has taken place at
the expense of food crops; but the output of commercial crops registered greater increase than those
of food crops.
It is difficult to establish a direct connection between commercialization and famines, even though
cash crops in some areas might have driven out food grains from the better quality land, with
consequent impact on output. But even if this had happened, it was an extremely localised
phenomenon, as on the whole food crops and cash crops were produced simultaneously. When
colonial rule came to an end, food crops were still being grown in 80 per cent of the cropped acreage.
But on the whole, the aggregate production of food crops lagged behind population growth. In view
of this, the claim of some historians that growth of trade and integration of markets through
development of infrastructure actually increased food security and contained the chances and severity
of famines in colonial India remains at best a contentious issue, particularly in the context of the
Bengal famine of 1943, which was preceded by a long period of consistently declining per capita
entitlement of rice in the province.
Q.4 (b) “The emergence of press and its growth in India during 18th and 19th century was also
associated with diversities and divergence of opinions, ideas and objectives and it catered to the
demand of targeted audience.” Elaborate.
Ans:
The history of the Indian press begins with the coming of the Europeans in 16th century. However, the
first newspaper to be published was ‘The Bengal Gazette’ by James Augustus Hickey in the year 1780.
But his press was confiscated in 1782 since its opinion were found to be detrimental to the interest of

the East India Company and its officials. Soon the medium of press was used by the Indians to address
their socio-religious ideas to the Indian audience, especially in Bengal.
A scrutiny of the 1830s makes it possible to identify such different strands of opinions
being articulated through newspapers although they concentrated largely on social reforms. For
instance:
IN BENGAL
 The Brahmos in Calcutta had their reformist newspaper Sambad Koumudi , Derozians had
Gyanaeswar (published in 1831) and Tattvabodhini Sabha had their Tattvabodhini Patrika
with the ostensible aim of disseminating scientific knowledge and questioning the traditional
beliefs.
 Samachar Chandrika at the other end of the spectrum upheld the conservative position, going
to the extent of defending even widow burning. Critical of Rammohan and dismissive of the
Young Bengal, the conservative journal had a greater amount of circulation than the Brahmo
papers.
 During the decade of the 1850s the advent of political journalism was signaled by Banga
Darshan which took up the cause of the peasants, and the Hindu Patriot, edited by Harish
Chandra Mukherjee, which forcefully articulated criticism against the indigo planters.
Whereas on the other end of spectrum some newspapers supported the landlords and indigo
planters.
IN BOMBAY
 Similar trends were also noticed in Bombay where critical journalism commenced with the
publication of Rast Goftar in 1851. It defended social reform in the Parsee community taking
a position against the conservative Parsee journal, Jam-i-Jamshed. There were less important
papers like Chabuk, a Parsee journal airing radical social views. These existed alongside the
more celebrated examples of Rast Goftar. In other regions also public spirited men under the
impact of the idea of social reform, carried on a discussion on India's modernization.
 The newspaper battle that one saw in the 1890s on the issue of age of consent, a new law of
1892 which raised the marriageable age of women, is an apt example. If Surendranath
Banerjee's Bengalee (influenced as it was by Brahmo opinion), supported this measure,
Sasadhar Tarkachuramoni's Bangabasi deprecated it, going to the extent of maligning
Surendranath Banerjee personally. The same drama was enacted in Maharashtra where Bal
Gangadhar Tilak's conservative newspapers like Kesari and Mahratta carried on a similar
battle against Sudharak, the journal of liberal nationalists like Ganesh Agarkar and Gopal
Krishna Gokhale.
Political Journalism was the dominant trend in the early part of the century, from the 1860s several
new trends could be observed. Some of them being: -
1. The newspapers began to comment on politically sensitive issues, including the early
nationalist initiatives towards arriving at a national consensus on questions like India's
economic development and political reform amounting to the creation of a

representative
system of government.
2. The discussion on social reform increasingly became linked with political debates and
conflicts. Rival political factions would go into acrimonious newspaper campaigns
against each other.
3. The expansion of the Vernacular press permitted a greater circulation of ideas and
opinions in the small towns in India.
4. Among the new public issues which touched on recurrent debates in the newspapers, the
tariff question engaged considerable attention. The deposition of Sayaji Rao Gaikwad,
the ruler of Baroda, by the British was another such important issue that aroused a lot of
excitement as an example of British injustice. With the tariff question was linked the
complaint expressed by the Indian press about a deliberate British policy to destroy the
Indian textile industry.
It is important to note that such issues began to feature in the Indian press, cutting across regional
boundaries and regardless of whether they had any immediate relevance for the local society. The
way such discussions were conducted in local newspapers, published usually from the small towns,
demonstrated how a kind of national consensus on certain critical political issues was slowly emerging.
There were occasions however when the Indian press remained divided.
Therefore, the press in India during 19th century was clearly associated with diversities and divergence
of opinions, ideas and objectives and it catered to the demand of targeted audiences which varied
from time and space.
Q.4 (c) “English utilitarianism had profound impact on British agrarian policy in India as well as
Indian Society in 19th century.” Comment.
Ans:
English utilitarianism had a tremendous impact on agrarian policy in India:
 The utilitarian’s, as Eric Stokes has suggested, had a contemptuous attitude towards landed
intermediaries. Following David Ricardo’s Theory of Rent, the utilitarians looked upon the rent
extracted by the zamindars as an unearned income that belonged to the government. In fact
the utilitarian’s favoured the property rights for the peasants.
 According to utilitarians, rent was surplus and only state had legitimate share in it at the
expense of unproductive intermediaries. Thus it provided argument for the abolishment of
zamindari system.
 Consequently, in several land revenue settlements in India like Ryotwari and Mahalwari
settlements in madras and Punjab respectively, the property rights were given to the
peasants/cultivators. Initially in the North-western provinces and later in Maharashtra,
agrarian settlements sought to vest property rights in the actual cultivators by setting aside
the claims of revenue intermediaries.
 Since the zamindars showed no signs of undertaking measures of improvement to increase
agricultural production, officials influenced by utilitarianism began to look for peasant
enterprise in agriculture. This way they believed that peasants would take interest in
modernising the agriculture and increasing its efficiency.

 The attack on intermediary rights had the additional motive of creating appropriate conditions
in which urban capital would be encouraged to make investments in agriculture in the absence
of locally powerful parasitic classes namely the zamindars.
Although, the new land revenue settlements were introduced in India but they failed to bring any
significant changes in the overall agricultural pattern, system, output because they were equally
harsh and the revenue demands were high and burdensome.
Social Impact of Utilitarianism on Indian society
 James mill was one of the greatest proponents of utilitarianism. Due to efforts of James Mill,
law commission under Lord Macaulay was appointed in 1833 which drew up Indian Penal
Code on Benthamite model.
 According to utilitarians what India needed for her improvement was an effective school
master i.e. wise government promulgating good legislation. Legislation was effective agent of
change. James Mill, the apostle of utilitarian philosophy, proposed a revolution off Indian
society through the ‘weapon of law’ solely. So following such ideology, Lord Bentick abolished
sati and child infanticide through legislation.
 Utilitarians favoured vernacular education as opposed to English as it was more suited to
Indian needs.
However, it is always to be remembered that whatever the school of philosophy may be whether
orientalist, utilitarianism or evangelism, their ultimate aim was to consolidate English rule over
British empire in India.

SECTION B
Q.5 (a) “We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so and a very advantageous, useful, humane
piece of rascality it will be.” Comment.
Ans:
Importance of Sindh for British
The conquest of Sindh occurred as a result of the growing Anglo-Russian rivalry and the
consequent British fears that Russia might attack India through north west region. To counter
Russia, the British Government decided to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Persia. It
further felt that this policy could be successfully pursued only if Sindh was brought under British
control.
The commercial possibilities of the river Sindh were an additional attraction. Primary waterway of
Sindh, the Indus river, was important for military and commercial purpose. The road and rivers of
Sindh were opened to British trade by a treaty in 1832 but military presence of British were not
allowed under this treaty.
Annexation of Sindh
Governor General Auckland had sent army to Sindh and announced the suspension of 1832 treaty.
The chiefs of Sindh, known as Amirs, were made to sign a subsidiary treaty in 1839. British forced
Amirs to finance British military presence and accept British East India Company’s currency. A
British resident was also installed in Hyderabad. All these effectively ended the sovereignty of
Sindh.
Lord Ellenborough, Auckland’s successor sent Sir Charles Napier with full civil and military power
to Sindh in September 1842, to take control of all British Indian troops there. Sindh was annexed
in 1843 after a brief campaign by Sir Charles Napier.
The annexation of Sindh was totally unjustified because of the following reasons
(1) Sindh was annexed despite the fact that Amirs who ruled Sindh had just signed agreement in
1839, highly favorable to British. Amirs had done no wrong and annexation was nothing but brutal
imperialism.
(2) Sindh was annexed in spite of previous assurances that its territorial integrity would be
respected. Annexation was open violation of existing treaty.
(3) Charge against Amirs was that they could not possibly be genuinely devoted to the Company.
Napier and Ellenborough held certain vague charges of disaffection in Amirs based on evidences
which were unsatisfactory. They accused Amirs for complicity with Afghan during the First Afghan
War.
(4) One of the major reason of the annexation of Sindh was the debacle of British in the First Anglo-
Afghan was (1839-42). British had felt need for a conquest to compensate the loss of the prestige
after debacle in the First Anglo-Afghan war.

(5) This was only war in the annals of British Raj which cannot be regarded as in some sense or in
some degree defensive.
(6) Napier was an ambitious soldier who saw opportunity in making name for himself. Napier
provoked the Sindhis into attacking British Residency in Hyderabad and war ensued.
(7) The annexation of Sindh was morally indefensible. Amirs had faithfully carried out terms of
treaties and have been loyal to British. The annexation was universally condemned. The Company
Directors disapproved of Napier’s Sindh policy though they had no courage to restore Sindh to
Amirs.
Outram, the British resident in Sindh had written to Charles Napier, general to who Ellenborough
had given free hand: “It grieved me to say that my heart and the judgement of God had given me
unite in condemning the measures we are carrying out as most tyrannical – positive robbery.”
Even Sir Charles Napier had written in his diary before fighting began: “we have no right to seize
Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful humane piece of rascality it will be”.
For his rascality, Napier was awarded 70000 Pound and governorship of Sindh.
Q.5 (b) “Where the Missionaries sometimes contributed positively and educated the Indians their
shortcomings, they completely destroyed their self-confidence and the self-respect.” Do you agree?
Ans:
The Character Act of 1813 was the first parliamentary approval for propagation of Christianity in India.
Positive outcome of missionary activities in India
 Gandhiji held the view that the work of Missionaries quickened the task of Hindu reformers
to set down our own house in order. The missionaries’ zeal to convert Hindus
and the realization that they were specially targeting the sections which had been trodden
down, lent an urgency to the determination of reformers to work for the uplift and integration
of these sections into the rest of the Hindu society. One example to this effect was that
Missionaries took up the cause of leprosy elimination. The work they undertook set the
example, which was later followed on by others in India.
 Generations of young man and women received modern education, many of whom were
endowed with the ideals of service and uprightness and rectitude because of the educational
institutions maintained by these missionary societies. Lakhs of people were saved and
restored to normal health by hospitals set up by the Church-affiliated organizations, namely
the Missionaries, The Christian Medial College at Vellore stands as a distinct example of which.
 The standards of living of the tribal was raised and they were able to carve out a living with
the aid of the Missionaries.
 Educational Reforms imbibed in the Missionaries a unifying spirit in the Indians and they came
together to fight for the cause as a united nation.
Negative impact of missionary activities in India
 The Missionaries completely destroyed the self-confidence and the self-respect of the natives.
It is evident from what Swami Vivekananda wrote, “The child is taken to school and the first
thing he learns is that his father is a fool, the second thing that his grandfather is a lunatic, the

third thing that all his teachers are hypocrites, the fourth that all his sacred books are a mass
of lies. By the time he reaches sixteen, he is a mass of negation, lifeless and boneless…”
 The mass conversion led to degradation of Indian Culture and a conflict between the classes
themselves originated.
 Many insensitive comments were made by British Evangelicals. Alexander Duff, Scottish
missionary and leading educator thought that though Hindu philosophical discourse
contained lofty terms in its religious vocabulary what they conveyed were only vain, foolish
and wicked conceptions. According to Duff, Hinduism spread like a dark universe where all life
dies and death lives. The Christian task for him was to do everything possible to demolish such
a gigantic fabric of idolatry and superstition.
 English also became a barrier to the spread of modern knowledge among the common people
of India. The educational inequalities made the so-educated Indians contempt the fellow
Indian and the following quote by Charles Trevelyan is an illustration to prove that. “A
generation is growing up which repudiates idols. A young Hindu, who had received a liberal
English education, was forced by his family to attend the shrine of kali, upon which he took
off his cap to ‘Madam Kali’, made her a low bow, and hoped ‘her lady ship was well’…”
Q.5 (c) "A strange and different Gandhi was born in 1942." Illustrate.
Ans:
Mahatma Gandhi had always followed nonviolence and Satyagraha during the freedom movements
like Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement. He did not hesitate to take
unpopular decision of withdrawing the movement once violence spread. He also opposed any class
struggle and believed in reconciliation in different classes of Indian society.
However, before the starting of the ‘Quit India Movement’ in 1942, Gandhi was in a strange and
uniquely militant mood which can be explained by the following factors:
(1) In a Press interview in May 1942, he repeatedly urged the British to leave India to God or to
anarchy. He said, “This orderly disciplined anarchy should go, and if as a result there is complete
lawlessness I would risk it.”
(2) Congress under Gandhi was against the Fascist aggression of Germany and Italy. However, India
was herself under colonial power and Indian Government’s unilateral decision of the participation in
the Second World War was not acceptable to the Congress and Gandhi. By the time mass movement
for independence was being planned, the Second World War was coming to the Indian doorsteps with
the possibilities of the Japanese invasion on India were real. The efforts of Cripps mission bore no fruit
and the prices of essential commodities were soaring high. People were restless and ready for any
sacrifice. Gandhi’s radical mood during the summer of 1942 reflects the restlessness of the leader,
who was eager and anxious to see that his mission of gaining freedom for India is realized soon.
(3) In the working committee meeting held at Wardha on 14 July, 1942 the Congress first accepted
the idea of a struggle. The All India Congress Committee that met in Bombay in August ratified this
decision to go in for struggle. In his speech Gandhi made it very clear that he was not going to be
satisfied with anything short of complete freedom. Gandhi then gave the famous mantra of ‘Do or Die’
saying that we shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of

slavery. Though the need for non-violence was always reiterated, Gandhi’s mantra of Do or Die
represents the militant mood of Gandhi”.
(4) The Wardha Working Committee resolution of 14th July had also introduced an unusual note of
social radicalism: ‘the princes, the Jagirdars, the Zamindars, the propertied and moneyed classes, who
derive their wealth and property from the workers in the fields and factories and elsewhere, to whom
eventually power and authority must belong’. This social radicalism indicates shift in the philosophy
of the Congress under Gandhi, which shows Gandhi’s unusual militant mood.
(5) Gandhi who was arrested in the early hours of 9 August, started fast on 10 February by declaring
that the fast would last for 21 days. He refused to condemn the violence of the masses and held the
government responsible for this violence. He refused to condemn the violence of the people because
he saw it as a mild reaction of the people to the much bigger violence of the state.
(6) In Francis Hutchins’ view, Gandhiji’s major objection to violence was that its use prevented mass
participation in a movement, but that, in 1942, Gandhiji had come around to the view that mass
participation would not be restricted as a result of violence.
Q.5 (d) “The situation held dangerous potentialities and if we did not handle it promptly &
effectively our hard-earned freedom might disappear through the states’ door.” Elucidate.
Ans:
At the time of Indian independence in 1947, India was divided into two sets of territories, the first
being the territories under the control of the British Empire, and the second being princely states over
which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. There
were almost 600 princely states. The termination of paramountcy of British Crown after independence
would have in principle meant that all rights that flowed from the states’ relationship with the British
crown would return to them, leaving them sovereign. The Congress’ stated position was that the
princely states were not sovereign entities, and as such could not opt to be independent
notwithstanding the end of paramountcy. The
On 27 June 1947, Sardar Patel assumed additional charge of the newly created States’ Department
with V.P. Menon as its Secretary. Patel was fully aware of the danger posed to Indian unity by the
possible intransigence of the rulers of the princely states. He told Menon at the time that ‘the situation
held dangerous potentialities and that if we did not handle it promptly and effectively, our hard-
earned freedom might disappear through the States’ door’. He, therefore, set out to tackle the
recalcitrant states expeditiously.
Patel and Menon adopted policy of carrot and stick. The official policy statement of the Government
of India made by Patel on 5 July 1947 made no threats. Instead, it emphasised the unity of India and
the common interests of the princes and independent India, reassured them about the Congress’
intentions, and invited them to join independent India “to make laws sitting together as friends than
to make treaties as aliens”. He reiterated that the States Department would not attempt to establish
a relationship of domination over the princely states. Patel and Menon backed up their diplomatic
efforts by producing treaties that were designed to be attractive to rulers of princely states. Two key
documents were produced.

1. The first was the Standstill Agreement, which confirmed that the agreements and
administrative practices that existed as between the princely state in question and the British
would be continued by India.
2. The second was the Instrument of Accession, by which the ruler of the princely state in
question agreed to the accession of his kingdom to independent India, and to granting India
control over specified subject matters. Patel appealed to the princes whose territories fell
inside India to accede to the Indian Union in three subjects which affected the common
interests of the country, namely, foreign relations, defence and communications.
Patel also sought to give princes the impression that if they did not accept the terms put to them then,
they would subsequently, after 15 August, have to accede on substantially less favourable terms.
The Standstill Agreement was used as a negotiating tool, as the States Department categorically ruled
out signing a Standstill Agreement with princely states that did not sign an Instrument of Accession.
Patel’s carrot and stick method to integrate princely states can be summarized as:
Carrot approach:
 aroused spirit of nationalism in rulers

 promised protection of their traditional rights (during accession)
 promised autonomy in internal matters and asked only for surrender of defence, external
affairs and communication subjects
 assured the provisions of a new constitution wouldn’t apply to them
 offered privy purses, retention of personal property and titles, inducements of Governorships
as ‘Rajapramukhs’ (during integration)
 emphasized that without integration their economies would collapse resulting in situation of
anarchy
Stick approach:
 used threat of popular protest

 encouraged Praja Mandals to agitate for accession to India – Travancore, Mysore, Kathiawar,
Orissa
 cut off critical supplies and lines of communication to Junagadh
 threat of military action
 use of military occupation – Junagadh
 use of police action – Hyderabad (Operation Polo)
Fearful of the rising tide of the peoples’ movements in their states, and of the more extreme agenda
of the radical wing of the Congress, as also Patel’s reputation for firmness and even ruthlessness, the
princes responded to Patel’s appeal and all but three of them—Junagadh, Jammu and Kashmir and
Hyderabad— acceded to India by 15 August 1947. By the end of 1948, however, the three recalcitrant
states too were forced to fall in line.
Q.5 (e) “I have labored to harness to India’s bullock-cark civilization three great engines of social
improvement- Railways, Uniform Postage and Electrical Telegraph.” Comment.
Ans:

Lord Dalhousie served as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856. In contrast to many of the
past leaders of the British Empire in India, he saw himself as an Orientalist and believed his rule was
that of a modernizer, attempting to bring the British intellectual revolution to India. A
staunch utilitarian, he sought to improve Indian society under the prevalent Benthamite ideals of the
period. He was determined to take forward Mill's vision of aggressive advancement of Britain's mission
in India.
However, in his attempt to do so he ruled with authoritarianism, believing these means were the most
likely to increase the material development and progress of India. His policies, especially the doctrine
of lapse, contributed to a growing sense of discontent among sectors of Indian society and therefore
greatly contributed to the Great Indian Uprising of 1857, which directly followed his departure from
India.
He introduced a number of reforms like the development Railway, Electric Telegraph and Postal
reform, which paved the way for the modernization of India. A modern sector of politics gradually
evolved in India, through rapid spread of education, development of communication systems, such as
the railways and telegraph.
Railway Development
Dalhousie introduced a new system of internal communication in India. He was the father of Indian
Railways. Dalhousie’s famous Railway Minute of 1853 convinced the home authorities of the need of
the railways and laid down the main lines of their development.
In 1853 Lord Dalhousie took the decision to construct railways in India mainly to facilitate army
movements. Gradually there arose another need to integrate the Indian market to open it to British
imports, i.e., to connect the port cities to the internal markets and sources of raw materials.
The first railway line connecting Bombay with Thane was laid down in 1853. The following year a
railway line was constructed from Calcutta to Raniganj coal-fields. Gradually all important cities and
towns were linked up with railway lines.
The railway lines were not built out of the Indian Exchequer but by private English Companies under
a system of “Government Guarantee”. Besides facilitating trade and commerce, minimizing distances
the railways have gone a long way in uniting India. As early as 1865 Sir Edwin Arnold wrote: “Railways
may do for India what dynasties have never done- what the genius of Akbar the Magnificent could not
effect by Governor, nor the cruelty of Tipu Sahib by violence- they may make India a nation.
The Electric Telegraph
In 1852 Dalhousie introduced the Electric Telegraph System in India. The first telegraph line from
Calcutta to Agra was opened in 1854, covering a distance of 800 miles. By 1857, it was extended to
Lahore and Peshawar. In Burma a line was laid down from Rangoon to Mandalay. People could send
message from one place to another place very easily by this telegraph system.
Postal Reforms
The basis of the modern postal system was laid down under Lord Dalhousie. In 1854 a new Post Office
Act was passed. Under this system, a Director-General was appointed to supervise the work of Post

Offices in all the Presidencies; a uniform rate of half-Anna per letter was introduced and for the first
time postage stamps were issued.
A postal Department was established for the whole country. As a result of these reforms the post
offices, which had so far been a drain on the treasury became the sources of revenue of the
government. The people were benefited by the modern postal system.
The social, administrative, financial and educational development resultant from the extension and
improvement of this system speak volumes for Dalhousie’s desire for promoting the material progress
of India.
Q.6 (a) “The communist had a love-hate relationship with the congress. Hence their role in
nationalist movement from 1925-1947 depended upon their attitude towards congress and their
theorization and re-theorization of Indian situation.” Critically examine the role played by the
communists in India’s struggle against the colonial rule.
Ans:
The Communist Party of India was inspired by Marxism and nationalism at the same time. They wanted
to free India from the imperial yoke but at the same time they believed in the Marxist principles i.e.
struggle between working class and the capitalist (and feudal elements). Added to this internal
dilemma was the dictate of the Communist International advocating change in strategy from time to
time. As compare to this Indian National Congress was a conglomeration of people of India founded
with the objective to undertake struggle against the colonial rule. In fact, the communist had a love-
hate relationship with the congress which is evident from their approach and attitude during the
nationalist movement from 1925-1947.
Initially due to the suspicion of the British government, the communists were not able to work openly.
Hence they worked through The Workers and Peasants Party (WPP). The communists working through
the WPP were able to create a strong momentum within and outside the congress party in favour of
communist ideas. However, since the communists of India thought themselves as a part of the
international communist movement, so they were guided by the strategic decisions of the Comintern.
In the Sixth Party Congress in 1929, the Comintern revised its policy towards the national movement
run by non-communist in colonial countries. They said that these national movements are bourgeois
led national movement. And actually they are not against imperialism. As a consequence, the
Communist Party of India decided that the Congress party is a bourgeois party and therefore there
should not be any connection with the Congress party. The communist party under the direction of
the Comintern decided to become more militant against the imperialism of the British government.
The CPI declared that its goal was to establish socialism in India through revolution. In 1934 the party
was accepted as the Indian section of the Communist International. The party moved toward more
radicalism. The CPI, with its new policy orientation had rejected non-violent forms of political struggle
and committed itself to the policy of armed struggle against British imperialism. The Communist Party
put forward a number of demands including abolition of zamindari, nationalization of banks, tea
gardens and shipping industries and a host of other radical programs. In keeping with the new policy
line, it not only dissociated itself from the Civil Disobedience Movement but also denounced the
Gandhi-Irwin Pact as an act of the betrayal of the Indian people.

The Seventh Party Congress in Moscow, 1935, revised its policy in light of the threats of fascism. The
Comintern went in favour of a united front with the bourgeois national movement against
imperialism. The Indian Communists were to once again participate in the activities of the mainstream
of the national movement led by the National Congress. The theoretical and political basis for the
change in communist politics in India was laid in early 1936 by a document popularly known as the
Dun-Bradley Thesis. According to this thesis, the National Congress could play a great part and a
foremost part in the work of realizing the anti-imperialist people’s front. The communist party
accepted the central role of the Congress in the struggle against imperialism in India and they gave
national movement ultimate importance. The united front with congress had brought the communists
in to the mainstream. However, the declaration of the Second World War (WW II) in September 1939
by the British Indian government had suddenly changed the course of the Indian national movement.
The war presented a dilemma to the Congress party, whether to support or not, the war efforts of the
government?
The congress said that if the government sets a definite road map for India’s independence, the
Congress will support the war efforts. The communists took a totally different stand. Their stand was
derived from the Russian interaction with Germany. Russian leader Stalin had signed a pact of mutual
interest with Germany in 1939. Therefore, for communists, Germany was in their side. So they
declared that the British war efforts are imperialist war. The communists planned, wide scale anti-
British activities in India, so that they can disrupt the British war efforts. The CPI formulated a new
policy statement known as 'Proletariat Path' through which it committed itself to open rebellion
against the British rule in India by organizing a 'general strike' in the major industries along with 'a no
rent, no tax campaign'. Not only that, it also wanted to make an open attack on all symbols of the
British authority including police and army structure. In pursuance of this new policy, they organized
a major strike in the textile mills of Bombay in March 1941.
But within two years everything was about to change fully. In June 1941, Hitler attacked Russia. And
on 12 July 1941 the Soviet Union and the Great Britain concluded an agreement on joint operation in
the war against Hitler. This also brought a change in the CPI’s thinking and the CPI decided to support
the British war efforts against the Fascists. In order to stick to their latest stand, the communists
directed its cadres to stay away from the Quit India Movement. Even the communists played as
collaborators of British to quell the movement. They helped the police and Criminal Investigation
Department (CID) in arresting the congress leaders and workers. After independence of India in 1947,
the CPI declared that this freedom was fake (yeh azadi jhooti hai).
It is evident from above that the communists were guided by various extraneous variable and looked
outside India for political guidance and this contributed in development of love-hate relationship with
the congress.
Q.6 (b) “How did the Indians actually "imagine" their nation is a matter of intense controversy and
ongoing debate.” In the light of this statement, critically analyse different views on “Indian
Nationalism” which is said to be developed during the British rule.
Ans:
Indian nationalism that confronted British imperialism in the nineteenth century was said to be a
product of colonial modernity.

As the self-professed mission of the colonizers was to elevate the colonized from their present state
of decadence to a desired state of progress towards modernity, it became imperative for the latter to
contest that stamp of backwardness and assert that they too were capable of uniting and ruling
themselves within the structural framework of a modern state.
So the challenge of nationalism in colonial India was twofold:
1. to forge a national unity and

2. to claim its right to self-determination.
How did the Indians actually imagine their nation can be explained by different views:
First View
Partha Chatterjee argued that nationalism in India, which was assigned a privileged position by its
Western educated political leadership, was a "different", but a "derivative discourse" from the West.
Ashis Nandy also thinks that Indian nationalism as a response to Western imperialism was and was
shaped by what it was responding to.
Second View
According to C.A. Bayly, Indian nationalism built on pre-existing sense of territoriality, a traditional
patriotism.
Third View
The early nationalist school focused primarily on the supremacy of a nationalist ideology and a
national consciousness to which all other forms of consciousness were assumed to have been
subordinated.
This awareness of nation was based on a commonly shared antipathy towards colonial rule, a feeling
of patriotism and an ideology rooted in a sense of pride in India's ancient traditions.
This school ignored the inner conflicts within Indian society-which among other things, led to its
division into two nation-states-and assumed the existence of nation as a homogeneous entity with a
single set of interests.
Fourth View: The "neo traditionalist" school
Politicization of Indian society developed along the lines of traditional social formations, such as
linguistic regions, castes or religious communities, rather than the modern categories of class or
nation.
The most important catalysts of change in this context were the institutional innovations of the
colonial state, notably the introduction of Western education and political representation. These new
opportunities intersected with the traditional Indian social divisions and created a new status group-
the Western-educated elite, which drew its members from the existing privileged indigenous
collective, such as the bhadralok in Bengal, the Chitpavan Brahmans in Bombay or the Tamil Brahmans
of Madras.

The backward regions or the underprivileged groups that remained outside this limited political nation
until Mahatma Gandhi initiated the new era of mass nationalism.
Fifth View: The 'Cambridge School’
If the 'neo traditionalist' historians studied Indian politics within the framework of the province, a
few others have tracked these divisions further down to the level of localities.
 The 'Cambridge School' have questioned the ontology of a unified nationalist movement, and
have traced instead only a series of localised movements in colonial India.
 The National Movement was led by self-serving leaders entirely to pursue their narrow
individual or clannish interests. They bargained with the British for power and patronage. India
was not a nation, but an aggregate of disparate interest groups.
Critic of this School
 It completely derecognized the role of nationalistic ideology and seek to explain the
nationalistic politics in terms of a competition-collaboration syndrome.
 It reduced nationalist movement to the state of "Animal Politics".
Sixth View: The orthodox Marxist school
 It sought to analyze the class character of the nationalist movement and tried to explain it in
terms of the economic developments of the colonial period, primarily the rise of industrial
capitalism and the development of a market society in India.
 It identified the bourgeois leadership, which directed this movement to suit their own class
interests and neglected the interests of the masses and even to some extent betrayed them.
This narrow class approach and economic determinism of the early Marxists like R.P. Dutt were
qualified in later Marxist writings of S.N. Mukherjee, Sumit Sarkar and Bipin Chandra.
Seventh View: Later Marxist Writings
S.N. Mukherjee
He pointed out the complexities of nationalism, its multiple layers and meanings, the importance of
caste along with class and the simultaneous use of a traditional as well as a modern language of
politics.
Sumit Sarkar
He recognizes the legitimacy of nationalism, but does not ignore the "internal tensions" within it.
There were two levels of anti-imperialist struggles in India, he contends, the one elite and the other
populist. One need not ignore either of the two, but look at the "complex interaction of these two
levels"
Bipin Chandra
He gave Marxist interpretation a distinctly nationalist orientation. He argues that Indian nationalist
movement was a popular movement of various classes, not exclusively controlled by the bourgeoisie.

In colonial India they demonstrate two types of contradictions.
1. The primary contradiction was between the interests of the Indian people and those of British
rule;
2. Several secondary contradictions within the Indian society, between classes, castes and
religious communities.
As the anti-colonial struggle made progress, the secondary contradictions were compromised in the
interest of the primary contradiction and in this way the hegemony of a nationalist ideology was
established.
The nationalist movement was not the movement of a single class or caste or a religious community.
There were various groups with conflicting interests and hence the need for constant compromises to
avoid class, caste or communal conflicts and to bring all those disparate groups under one umbrella
type leadership. As a result, the Indian nationalist movement became a peoples' movement, though
all the secondary conflicts were not satisfactorily resolved.
Eighth View: Subaltern views (Ranajit Guha)
Ranajit Guha says:
The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism and it neglects
the contribution made by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite to the making
and development of this nationalism.
This school thinks that organized national movement which ultimately led to the formation of the
Indian nation-state was hollow nationalism of the elites, while real nationalism was that of the masses,
whom it calls the 'subaltern'.
Although the subalterns from time to time participated in political movements initiated by the
bourgeoisie, the Latter failed to speak for the nation.
The bourgeois leadership failed to establish its hegemony through either persuasion or coercion, as it
was continually contested by the peasantry and the working class, who had different idioms of
mobilisation and action, which the nationalist movement failed to appropriate.
The new nation-state established the dominance of this bourgeoisie and its ideology, but it was a
"dominance without hegemony".
Shift in Subaltern in recent years
Sumit Sarkar about the "decline of the subaltern in Subaltern Studies": This is because gradually its
focus has expanded from an exclusive preoccupation with forms and instances of subaltern protest to
an incorporation of the politics of the colonial intelligentsia as well.
Dipesh Chakrabarty justifies shift in focus because "lite and dominant groups can also have a subaltern
past".
According to Partha Chaterjee, the two domains of elite and subaltern politics should be studied not
in their separateness but in their "mutually conditioned historicity".

Conclusion
Indian nationalism, in other words, is an intensely contested discursive terrain from where it is difficult
to arrive at a dialectical middle ground or evolve an eclectic view that would be acceptable to all.
If British rule sought to colonize Indian minds, the Indians also selectively appropriated, internalized
and manipulated that colonial knowledge to mount their own resistance to colonial hegemony.
India was a plural society and therefore Indian nationalism was bound to have many voices, as
different classes, groups, communities and regions interpreted their 'nation' in various, sometimes
even contradictory, ways.
Q.6 (c) Trace the development of the Congress’s attitude towards the Peoples’ Movements (Praja
Mandal Movements) in the Princely States.
Ans:
The onset of the nationalist movement in British India also had an impact on the people of the Princely
States. Many revolutionary nationalists fleeing British authority came to the Princely States in the first
and second decades of the 20th century and initiated political activities there.
The launching of the non-cooperation and Khilafat movements stirred the entire Indian population
cutting across the borders of British India. Under the national movement, the subjects of the princely
states established people’s organizations in the Princely States were established
in Mysore, Hyderabad, Baroda, Kathiawad, Jamnagar, Indore, Nawanagar, etc. The people’s
organisation started by the people of princely states for the national movement were called ‘Praja
Mandals’.
The people of Praja Mandal movement fought against their feudal princes and the British
administration simultaneously for their rights. The main demand of the Praja Mandal movements was
the democratic rights.
Attitude of Congress:
The Congress, for the first time at its Nagpur Session in 1920, enunciated its policy towards the
peoples’ movement in the Princely States. It called upon the Princes to grant full responsible
government in their States. However, it was pointed out that though the people belonging to the
States could enroll themselves as members of the Congress, they could not initiate political activity in
the State in the name of the Congress. They could carry on political activity in their individual capacity
as members of the local Praja Mandals.
From the mid-20s, the Congress started taking keen interest in the states’ people’s movements. In
1929, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his presidential address of Lahore Congress observed, “The Indian
States cannot live apart from the rest of India…. The only people who have a right to determine the
future of the States must be the people of those States.”
This position continued till 1935 though the cooperation between the leaders of the States’ People’s
Conferences and the Congress leaders gradually increased. Finally, it was decided that Congress
Committees could be formed in the Indian States but they were not to engage in any unparliamentary

activity or direct action. This compromise formula helped to bring about harmony between the
Congress and the freedom movement in the States.
In a resolution passed at the Lucknow session of Congress in 1936, it was observed that, “Congress…
desires to make it clear that, in its opinion, the people of the States should have the same rights of
self-determination as those of the rest of India, and that the Congress stands for the same political,
civil and democratic liberties for every part of India. The Congress, however, desires to point out that
the struggle for liberty within the States has to be carried on by the people of the State themselves.”
In Rajkot, the Satyagraha movement drew personalities like Gandhiji and Sardar Patel. Though
Gandhiji ultimately withdrew the Satyagraha accepting his failure to change the heart of the ruler, its
impact was far reaching. In Hyderabad also, a very powerful people’s movement built up. In Kashmir,
under Sheikh Abdullah the people organized themselves. The Congress also started showing more
interest in various political activities in the States, though adhering to its old stand that the movement
in the Princely States should not be conducted in the name of the Congress but in the name of the
local organizations.
After this, the Haripura session of Congress in 1938 dealt with the problems of the States in detail. It
considered the states to be integral parts of India and desired the same political, social and economic
freedom in the States as in the rest of India. The demand for ‘Purna Swaraj’ put forward by the
Congress was for the whole of India inclusive of the States.
But Haripura Congress of 1938 reiterated its policy that movements in the States should not be
launched in the name of Congress but should rely on their own local strength. A few months later, on
seeing the spirit of people and their capacity to struggle, Gandhi and Congress changed their attitude
on this question. The radicals and socialists in Congress as well as Political workers in the States had
already been pressing for this change for quite some time.
Explaining this shift in policy in Jan, 1939, Gandhi said: The policy of nonintervention by the Congress
was in my opinion a perfect piece of statesmanship when the people of the States were not awakened.
That policy would be cowardice when there is all round awakening among them and a determination
to go through a long term suffering for vindication of their just rights. The moment they became ready,
the legal, constitutional and artificial boundary was destroyed.
Congress at Tripuri in march 1939 passed a resolution enunciating its new policy by complete removal
of restrain on itself.
Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to become the President of the All India States’ People’s Conference in
1935, and elected president of the All India States’ People’s Conference in 1939 at its session held
in Ludhiana. (He remained President until 1946). He exhorted the Praja Mandals to step up the
agitations in the States to uphold the rights and dignities of the people.
During the Quit India movement, 1942, Congress formally extended the call for launching a struggle
to the people of the States as well. The constitutional changes, likely to take place in the near future
also underlined the necessity of having an organic relationship between the Princely States and the
Government of India.

Q.7 (a) “The revolutionary movement progressed in phases with breaks and changing its character.”
Comment.
Ans:
The revolutionary movement can be divided into three phases which had different characters:
The first phase (1897-1910)
Akharas or gymnasia that propagated a 'physical culture' and an interest in militant politics were set
up in many parts of Bengal in the 1860s and 1870s. These were the precursors to the earliest secret
societies in Bengal which came up around 1902, three in Calcutta and one in Midnapore. The
Midnapore Secret Society was founded by the brothers Jnanendranath and Satyendranath Basu, and
Hemchandra Kanungo; Sarala Ghoshal started a gymnasium for sword and lathi-play to train
revolutionaries for action; the Atmannyoti Samiti was set up by Nibaran Bhattacharya among others
and the Anushilan Samiti was set up by Satishchandra Basu.
However, it was the popular upsurge of the Swadeshi Movement in 1905 that marked a sudden
increase in the activities of these secret societies and the birth of many more. The Dacca chapter of
the Anushilan Samiti was founded by Pulinbehari Das in 1906. In Dacca and Midnapore, the Swadeshi
movement was stage-managed by secret societies. In 1906 Hemchandra Kanungo travelled to Europe
to train with revolutionaries. Aurobindo and Charuchandra Dutta started a weekly called 'Yugantar'.
They had set up a religious school and bomb making factory at Manicktala, and also used
Hemchandra's expertise in this regard, freshly acquired from his trip to Europe.
The first successful assassination was undertaken by Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki. These two
young members of the Samiti had thrown a bomb at a carriage they had believed was carrying the
magistrate Kingsford, but it had killed the wife and daughter of a barrister, Pringle Kennedy. Within
36 hours, the whole group had been rounded up and arrested, except Aurobindo and Hemchandra.
Prafulla shot himself and Khudiram was sent to the gallows. This incident was followed by a series of
killings in retaliation. At the same time the Dacca Anushilan Samiti made its presence felt with the
Barrah dacoity in 1908.
Although Bengal was the nerve centre of revolutionary activity of this sort, discontent was rife in the
Deccan as well, especially in the aftermath of the plague epidemic, during which the destruction of
property and forcible hospitalization of people had created deep resentment among Indians.
Moreover, the westernized social reformers of Bombay also provoked angry reactions from those who
saw them as defilers of age-old Hindu norms.
The Chapekar brothers had assassinated Rand, the Plague Commissioner of Pune in 1897, for which
they were hanged in 1898. Their martyrdom deeply influenced V. D. Savarkar who ran a group called
the Mitra Mela, which later became Abhinav Bharat.
A large number of Indian revolutionaries also worked for the cause from Europe. In 1905, Shyamji
Krishna Varma founded the India Home Rule Society, started the journal Indian Sociologist and
established the India House to help fund Indian students studying abroad. The India House became a
meeting place for other revolutionary leaders like P. M. Bapat, Virendranath Chattopadhyay, Lala
Hardayal, Bhai Parmanand, Madanlal Dhingra, V. V. S. Aiyar, Madame Cama and Savarkar, who had

left for London in 1906. Savarkar’s elder brother, Ganesh Savarkar was sentenced to life
imprisonment. Jackson, the collector of Nasik, was assassinated in retaliation, and Madanlal Dhingra
shot dead Curzon Wyllie, an officer from the India House. Dhingra was hanged in May, 1909.
Those involved in the Muzaffarpur blast and those found to be running a bomb factory in Manicktala
garden house were tried in 1910, and some were hanged and others deported for life. Savarkar was
transported to the Andamans for life, and after Madanlal Dhingra’s execution, his revolutionary
friends in London, now under police surveillance, had to leave for Paris, Berlin and Geneva. These
incidents had a strong impact on revolutionaries, bringing the intense first phase of revolutionary
activity to an end.
The second phase (1910-1918)
The beginning of the second phase was crucial because centres of revolutionary activity came up in
many parts of the country. Secret societies emerged in Benaras and Dehradun under the leadership
of Rashbehari Bose and Sachindranath Sanyal. Similar organizations were set up in Punjab under Ajit
Singh, Bhai Parmanand, Hardayal, with the encouragement of Lala Lajpat Rai and Hansraj. The
Ansuhilan Samiti in Dhaka and the Yugantar group in Calcutta under Jantindranath Mukherji,
expanded their operations. The Bharat Mata Association came up in Tirunelveli in Madras Presidency.
These secret societies continued to attack British officials and to undertake ‘dacoities’ to raise funds.
Its leaders established contacts with each other and sought sympathy and arms from sources beyond
Indian boundaries. Revolutionaries in Europe kept up attacks on the colonial government in India
through its journals.
But the most significant development in this second phase was the emergence of a movement on the
Pacific coast of America and British Columbia, by Punjabi traders, peasants and workers who had
emigrated from India. The movement in San Fransisco, referred to as the Ghadar party after its popular
publication, was established in 1913 under the leadership of Lala Hardayal and Sohan Singh Bhakhna.
Another similar organization called ‘Free Hindustan’ came up in Vancouver in Canada. Their aim was
to use British preoccupation with the First World War to their advantage, link up with enemies of the
British, notably Germany and Turkey and eventually organize an uprising in India by 1915, with the
help of sepoys. Leaders in India, like Rashbehari Bose, Jatindranath Mukherjee, Vishnu Ganesh Pingle
and Sachindranath Sanyal would coordinate with them to ensure the success of the uprising.
The ‘Ghadar’ was circulated widely amongst Indians all over the world – in America, Canada, Shanghai,
Hong Kong, Manila, Penang and Singapore. With minimal planning, ‘branches’ almost spontaneously
mushroomed in many of these countries, to generate sympathy and excitement for the revolution.
Meanwhile, Indian leaders negotiated with Germans to receive arms and ammunition, because
Germans were keen to cause trouble for the British in their colonies.
The date for the revolution in northern India was fixed for 21 February 1915, by which date almost
8000 Ghadarites had come into Punjab and spread all over the north. They had also made contact with
garrisons in Lahore, Rawalpindi, Ferozepur, Banaras, Danpur and Fort William. However, the plan
ended in a fiasco because the German cache of arms didn’t arrive and the British uncovered the
conspiracy. 46 Ghadarites were executed, 64 transported for life and hundreds got life imprisonment.

Sachindranath was deported for life, Jatindranath died in a gun battle against policemen and
Rashbehari Bose managed to leave the country for Japan.
The third phase (1918-1938)
The early years of the third phase was a period of lull, as the entry of Gandhi to the political stage had
re-invigorated mass support, apparent in the scale of participation in the Non-Cooperation Movement
of 1920. Revolutionaries also watched the ‘non-violent’ mass movement unfold with admiration. But
the euphoria proved to be short-lived as Gandhi revoked the movement abruptly in February 1922,
when it was at its peak. Gandhi’s action caused great dismay within the Congress and the country at
large. It precipitated the third phase of the revolutionary movement. Revolutionary activity re-
emerged with the aim of tapping into the strength of mass agitation, but through a technique
diametrically opposed to Gandhi’s ‘ahimsa’.
Preparation for an armed struggle against the British continued through secret societies, bomb
factories, assassination and ‘political dacoities’. But, apart from this, there was also an attempt to
develop a larger ideology of socio-economic emancipation of the poor masses of the country through
a revolution. The centres of the movement were all over Bengal, UP and Punjab. In Bengal a ‘New
Violence Party’ came up in 1923, which established links with the Hindustan Republican Association
(HRA). The latter had centres in UP. In Kakori, 14 miles from Lucknow, a train was held-up in a daring
‘dacoity’ by HRA activists in 1925, for which many of them were arrested later.
The most significant developments of this period took place in UP and Punjab. The H.R.A. in UP already
had a revolutionary ideology which aimed, not just at overthrowing the British colonial state, but
replacing it with some form of ‘federal republic’ in India. This ‘republic’ would be established by mass
participation through universal suffrage, in order to end the exploitation of the poor. Important
members of the HRA -- Ashfaqullah, Ram Prasad Bismil, Rajendranath Lahiri and Thakur Roshan Singh
fearlessly faced death in 1927 for their role in the Kakori conspiracy case. After their hanging, the
leaders of the movement, now under close surveillance of the police, met in Delhi in 1928 to establish
the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army. The young Bhagat Singh was the main ideologue of the HSRA,
and gave the movement a clear Marxist-Socialist orientation. They were intent on spreading their
ideas primarily amongst peasants, students and workers.
In December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru killed, Saunders, a police official, to avenge the
death of Lala Lajpat Rai in the police lathi-charge during the anti-Simon Commission agitation. This act
turned them into national heroes. In 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt hurled harmless
bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly, to ‘make the deaf hear’, and scattered HSRA leaflets. They
courted arrest and were tried for the Lahore and U.P. Conspiracy cases. They turned their prison into
a political platform by agitating for the rights of political prisoners through long hunger strikes. Jatin
Das died in prison after an epic 64 days of starvation. They used the spotlight to propagate their ideas
and inspire the country to action.
In Bengal, national independence, and not a socialist revolution, remained the more urgent and
hallowed goal. Surya Sen, popularly known as ‘master-da’ was a revolutionary form Chittagong who
had escaped the police in Shovabazar, to reorganize revolutionary work in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and
UP. In 1928 he along with his friends established the Indian Revolutionary Association (IRA) in
Chittagong, on the lines of the Irish Sinn Fein. They planned a military insurrection to take over

Chittagong and to declare it a republic. On 22 April, 1930, the IRA was engaged in a fierce gun battle
with the police, in which they lost 13 of their ranks. After this the IRA started ‘khanda juddha’ or
guerilla warfare against the state. This ‘war’ continued for a long time until Surya Sen was arrested in
February 1933, and his closest aides Tarakeswar Dastidar and Kalpana Datta in May 1933.
Bhagat Singh and his aides, including Chandrashekhar Azad were killed in 1931. Surya Sen and
Tarakeswar were sentenced to death and Kalpana for life, in 1934. After this, some revolutionary
activity continued sporadically, often to avenge the death of these heroes, but with little impact. In
1938, the most long-lived revolutionary organization, the Yugantar formally decided to dissolve itself.
Q.7 (b) “Revolt of 1857 had many democratic and nationalistic sentiments associated with it and
various measure were taken by Indian rebels to ensure unity amongst Indian.” Justify the statement
with the help of examples.
Ans:
One of the significant aspect associated with the Revolt of 1857 was the republican or democratic
sentiments reflected by the Bengal Army sepoys and the leaders associated with the revolt.
 They formed representative bodies, after the capture of cities from the British. They chose to
call them `councils', and elected their peers to the same.
 Although the mutineers acknowledge the titular emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as their leader
but they actually constituted a `Court of Administration' consisting of the representatives of
different rebel contingents to administer Delhi. Therefore, the Bengal Army sepoys not only
had a concept of modern organisation, but also put stress on the important question of
representation through consensus, selection, election etc. In Lucknow too the sepoys insisted
on constituting a similarly representative `court' or `council'.
 Moreover, the native papers brought out from Delhi indicate at the popular sentiments that
reflected equality and brotherhood amongst Indians. They always addressed its readers as
`fellow countrymen' and called the rebel army Fauj-i Hindustani or the Indian Army.
 The nationalistic feelings amongst the sepoy and other rebels is also evident from the fact that
during the four months of rebel control in Delhi the amount of misconduct by the sepoys was
limited. They in fact identified themselves with the civilian population.
 The letter which was written by Emperor Bahadur Shah to the Rajput chiefs of Rajputana
clearly had nationalistic feelings. He had written in the letter: “It is my hearty wish that the
Firangee should be turned out of India and the whole of India should be freed of foreigners
and become an independent country. If all the Indian chiefs make a determined bid to drive
the English out of India then I am fully prepared to hand over all my royal power and authority
to any of the concord of the Indian ruler which may be formed.”
 The content and the language of the proclamations issued by Prince Birjis Qadr, by the rebels
in Awadh specially the Azamgarh proclamation and the one issued by Begum Hazrat Mahal
clearly indicate that the presence of growing sense of nationalism and the fact that it is the
Indian people who are in the forefront. Many pertinent question of all India relevance is raised
for the first time so as to expose British and unite Indians. For instance, questions like, if the
English really want to do justice, why they don’t return Mysore which they took from Tipu
Sultan, or return the Punjab which they took from Dulip Singh, the rebels of Awadh asked?
 Further, the trial of 1857 was faced by Indian as a united community. The events of 1857 stood
as a great testimony to the traditions of Hindu-Muslim unity that held out as an example for

subsequent generations. What is significant is that despite rallying under the flag of 'deen' and
'dharma', the rebellion was united. There was no division between Hindus and Muslims in
their resistance to alien domination. Some measures taken to ensure unity among the rebels
are given below: -
 In every 'ishtahar' (advertisement) that the rebel leadership issued, Hindus and Muslims were
called upon to rise together to fight against British rule and to remove it.
 The proclamations issued by Muslim princes took utmost care to address the sentiments of
Hindus. The ishtahars harked back to the pre-British Hindu-Muslim past and glorified the
coexistence of different communities under the Mughal Empire.
 The proclamation that was issued under the name of Bahadur Shah appealed to the people to
join the fight under the standards of both Muhammad and Mahavir.
 The Emperor banned cow slaughter to show respect to Hindu sentiments.
 The Mughal Emperor clarified the definition of jihad and firmly warned his co-religionist that
there was only one "jihad" and that was against the British.
The feeling of brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims was found not only in the army but also among
the civil population. The mutiny of 1857 by Indian soldiers against their British masters must not be
misinterpreted in the narrow sense of the word religion. What the rebels fought to defend was a way
of life which they feared the British were destroying.
Q.7 (c) “The impact of the brahmo movement was not just confined to Bengal.” Discuss the
statement with help of examples.
Ans:
The impact of the Brahmo movement was not just confined to Bengal. In fact, the leaders and
members of Brahmo Reform movement took initiatives to spread it in other provinces.
In Maharashtra
 In Maharashtra for example, during the 1860s there emerged a reformist group who were
followers of Keshub Chandra Sen.
 Sen went to Bombay twice in 1864 and 1867. Some of Sen’s followers in Bombay formed the
Prarthana Samaj in 1867. Their efforts started with a kind of secret meeting called
Paramhamsa mandali, set up by Atmaram Pandurang who wanted a full length discussion of
the evil effects of casteism and idolatry. The Prarthana Samaj maintained its connections with
the Brahmo Samaj.
 Even though the Prarthana Samaj unlike the Brahmos did not acquire a distinct sectarian
religious identity, it nonetheless became the breeding ground for the liberal nationalist
movement in western India. It was primarily a social reform and social work movement. It
believed that true love of god lay in the service of its children without any social or religious
distinction. The only religious component of the Samaj was faith in single, all powerful and
loving god (i.e. monotheism). It did not reject Vedas or Upanishads. However, it paid more
emphasis on Bhakti (devotion).
 A paper named Subodh Patrika was started in order to spread the teaching of the society.
Night schools and reading rooms were opened for the benefit of working class. Orphanages
were opened and schools for girls were started.

 Some prominent Prarthna Samajist like Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, Narayan Ganesh
Chandarvarkar, Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, K.T.Telang etc. contributed for overall development of
the society.
In South India
 In southern India as well we see the same kind of Brahmo connection as well. During his visit
to Madras, Keshub Sen had converted a few south Indian intellectuals who had then formed
the Ved Samaj into Brahmoism.
 Intellectuals like Sridharalu Naidu wrote extensively against caste system, polygamy and child
marriage. He reorganized the Ved Samaj into an active organization.
 The Brahmos also had similar influence on reformers like Pantulu. We know from the
autobiographies of Sivanath Shastri and Bipin Pal about his connections with the Brahmos.
Pantalu set up an organization at Rajahmundry, a city which both Shastri and Pal visited during
the 1870s, to campaign for widow remarriage.
Towards the close of the 19th century, such Brahmo brand of reform initiatives were very
systematically and very powerfully challenged by different kinds of religious movements. Some of
these were equally forward looking. The Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement, for example, had
the same emphasis on personal god and social reform.
Q.8 (a) “The scheme of Dyarchy was ‘cumbrous, complex, confused system, having no logical basis
and rooted in compromise’ and was foredoomed to failure.” Give your views.
Ans:
As per Government of India Act, 1919 the spheres of the central and provincial governments were
demarcated by a division of subjects into “central” and “provincial”. The central subjects included all
subjects directly administered by the Government of India or in which extra-provincial interests were
dominant. The provincial subjects included subjects in which the interests of the provinces essentially
predominated.
The Dyarchy was for the Provincial Governments. The provincial subjects were divided into two
categories viz. reserved and transferred. The reserved subjects were kept with the Governor and
transferred subjects were kept with Governor acting with the Indian Ministers.
Diarchy was introduced in the provinces on April 1, 1921, and continued in operation till April 1937.
During its operation, the limitations and defects of Diarchy came to the surface:
1. The actual division of subjects under the two heads of Reserved and Transferred was illiogical
and irrational, the result being that neither a Minister, nor an Executive Councillor could work
independently of the other. Thus, while Agriculture was a transferred subject, Irrigation was
kept as Reserved, though the two for obvious reasons cannot be separated. Similarly, industry
was Transferred, while Water, Power Factories and Mines were kept as Reserved.
2. It was not possible at times to have unity of purpose between the two branches of
administration. For instance, when there was agitation in regard to the Sikh Gurudwaras, the
aim of the Member in charge of law and order, which was Reserved subject, was to introduce
certain legislative measures to meet the situation, but this he could not do, as the legislation

in this connection could be introduced only by the Minister in-charge of Religious

Endowments, which was a Transferred subject.
3. At times there was such a confusion that the authorities could not decide whether a particular
subject belonged to one department or the other. For example: an enquiry was started in the
Department of Agriculture on the question of the fragmentation of holdings. When the Report
was submitted in the following year, all of a sudden it was discovered that the question should
have been handled by the Revenue Department, to which the matter was now referred. But
here too, when the question had engaged the attention of the Revenue Department for two
years, it was discovered that the subject after all belonged to the Co-operative Department.
4. There was no love lost between the two halves of the Government. The ministers were the
representatives of the people while the members of the Executive Council belonged to the
bureaucracy. Friction between them was inevitable. At times the Ministers and the Executive
Councillors condemned one another in public. As a rule, the Governor backed the members
of the Executive Council against the Ministers.
5. The position of the Ministers was weak in another way. They had to serve two masters,
Governor and the Legislative Council. A Minister was appointed by the Governor and
dismissed at his will. He was responsible to the Legislature for the administration of
his department. He could not retain his if a legislature passed a vote of no confidence against
him. From point of view of practical politics, the Ministers cared more for the Governor than
the Legislature. There were no strong parties in the provincial legislatures. The result was that
no Minister had a majority to back him in office. He had always to depend upon the backing
and support of official bloc in the legislature and this he could only get if the Governor was
happy with him. The result was that the Ministers sank to the position of glorified secretaries
and were always at the beck and call of the Governors.
6. The Governor did not encourage the principle of joint responsibility amongst
the Ministers. The latter never worked as a team. They were at times pitched against one
another. In 1928, Feroz Khan Noon, a Punjab Minister, publicly criticized and condemned the
action of his Hindu colleague.
7. In most important matters. the Ministers were not even consulted, as for instance in the
case of Gandhiji’s arrest. The repressive policy against the non-cooperation movement was
planned, and executed but the Ministers were neither consulted nor did they even know what
actually the Governor was planning to do. They, in the words of CR. Das, “were only dumb
spectators, who could neither speak nor say anything. “
8. A Minister did not have the required control on the services under his own department His
Own Secretary had a weekly interview with the Governor and therefore his opinion carried
greater weight than that of the Minister. Whenever there was a difference of opinion between
the Minister and his permanent Secretary or between the Minister and the Commissioner of
a Division or the head of the department, the matter had to be referred to the Governor, who
always supported the officials against the Minister. As pointed out by P. N. Masaldan: “'The
carrying out of the policy laid down by the Ministers was largely left to the services over which
the Ministers had no control. It was, for the Ministers, a case of holding responsibility without
corresponding authority.”
9. The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal and transfer of the members of All-
India Services was under the control of the Secretary of State for India. These persons
continued to be under the control of the Secretary of State even if they held charge in the
Transferred departments. They, in consequence, did not care for the Ministers. The Ministers
had no power to choose officers of their own liking.

10. All the so-called nation building departments were transferred to the Ministers but they were
given no money for them. The result was that the Ministers had to depend upon the goodwill
of the Finance Member. As a member of the bureaucracy, the Finance Member had little
sympathy will the aspirations of the people as represented by the Ministers. He cared more
for the needs of the Reserved departments than for the Transferred departments.
All these factors led to the failure of the Diarchy and as per recommendation of the Simon
Commission, it was abolished in the provinces in the Government of India Act, 1935.
Q.8 (b) “It is not the pitiless operations of economic laws, but it is thoughtless and pitiless action of
the British policy; it is pitiless eating of India’s substance in India and further pitiless drain to
England, in short it is pitiless perversion of Economic Laws by the sad bleeding to which India is
subjected, that is destroying India.”- Dadabhai Naoroji.
In the light of the given statement, explain the Drain of Wealth Theory and its impact on the growth
of economic nationalism in India.
Ans:
The Indian national movement was deeply and firmly rooted in an understanding of the nature and
character of colonial economic domination and exploitation. One of the most significant historical
contribution of the early moderate Indian leaders was that they offered an economic critique of
colonialism. This economic nationalism, as it is often referred to, became a major theme that
developed further during the subsequent period of the nationalist movement.
The constant flow of wealth from India to England for which India did not get an adequate economic,
commercial or material return has been described by Indian national leaders and economists as ‘drain’
of wealth from India. The colonial government was utilizing Indian resources- revenues, agriculture,
and industry not for developing India but for its utilization in Britain. If these resources been utilized
within India, then they could have been invested and the income of the people would have increased.
The drain of wealth was interpreted as an indirect tribute extracted by imperial Britain from India year
after year.
The Drain of Wealth theory was systemically initiated by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1867 who mentioned
this theory in his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India. He put forward the idea that Britain was
draining and bleeding India and that, too, for nothing.
The theory was further analysed and developed mainly by R.C. Dutt, M.G Ranade, who published The
Economic History of India in two volumes (1901-3). R. C. Dutt also promoted the same theory in his
book Economic History in India. R.C. Dutt protested that taxation raised by a king is like the moisture
sucked up by the sun, to be returned to earth as fertilizing rain, but the moisture raised from the Indian
soil now descends as fertilizing rain largely on other lands, not on India.
John Sullivan, President of the Board of Revenue, Madras, had wrote—” 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.”
This "drain theory" was in fact the key theme of this economic nationalism. It was argued that direct
drainage of wealth took place through the payment of home charges, military charges, and

guaranteed interest payment on railway investments. The burden became heavier because of the
falling exchange rates of rupee in the 1890s and was compounded by budget deficits, higher taxes,
and military expenditure. In Naoroji’s calculation this huge drainage amounted to about £12 million
per year, while William Digby calculated it to be £30 million. In average, this amounted to at least half
of the total revenue income of the British Indian government. This directly impoverished India and
stultified the process of capital formation.
Because of their negative impact on indigenous industries and handicraft, free foreign trade and
railways represented not economic development but colonization and under development of
economy. Drain constituted a major obstacle to rapid industrialization especially when it was in terms
of policy of free trade.
The political consequences of foreign capital investment were no less harmful for the penetration of
foreign capital led to its political subjugation. Foreign capital investment created vested interests
which demanded security for investors and therefore perpetuated foreign rule.
To quote Dadabhai Naoroji, "materially" British rule caused only "impoverishment"; it was like "the
knife of sugar. That is to say there is no oppression, it is all smooth and sweet, but it is the knife,
notwithstanding. "
Impact of the Drain Theory in the Growth of Economic Nationalism:
 The drain theory had far reaching impact on the growth of the economic nationalism in 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.
 The construction of the economic critique of colonialism had political and ethical significance.
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
economic theory by linking Indian poverty to colonialism was trying to corrode the moral
authority of colonial rule, and also perhaps by implication challenging the whole concept of
paternalistic imperialism or British benevolence. The nationalist drain theory gradually
undermined these moral foundations.
 The economic welfare of India was offered as the chief justification for the British rule by the
imperialist rulers and spokesmen. The Indian nationalists by their forceful argument asserted
that India was economically backward precisely because the British were ruling it in the
interest of British trade; industry and finance were the inevitable consequences of the British
rule.
 The corrosion of faith in the British rule inevitably spread to the political field. Step by step,
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.
 The nationalists of the twentieth century were relying heavily on the main themes of their
economic critique of colonialism. These themes were then to reverberate in Indian villages,

towns and cities. Based on this firm foundation, the later nationalists went on to stage
powerful mass agitations and mass movements. The drain theory thus laid the seeds for
subsequent nationalism to flower and mature.
Q.8 (c) What was the nature and character of the European managing agencies? Critically examine
the role played by them in Industrial development of India during nineteenth century.
Ans:
The European managing agencies controlled a large sector of Indian industries. Three of the biggest
ones were Bird Heiglers & co., Andrew Yule, and Jardine skinner & co. These agencies mobilized
capital, set up stock companies and managed them.
Nature & Character
 They used to provide management expertise to the companies. These were partnership
firms or private limited firms. Within these firms, control was limited to 4-5 people and
was hereditary.
 They also used to act as promoters as well as financiers. A company could also apply to
the Managing agency for loan. Thus they acted as financiers. Then due to absence of
capital markets, while promoting new companies, these agencies used to buy shares
(initial public offerings) temporarily and offload later. This way they acted as promoters.
Thus they played important role in mobilizing capital, setting joint stock companies and
managing them.
 They were interested in only certain kinds of products like tea, coffee, indigo, jute
plantations. These products for export and not for sale in India.
Limitations
1. They had too much of power vested in them. This led to lack of interest on Indian
capitalists' part to float their own ventures by using capital provided by managing
agencies.
2. These managing agencies had their own chambers of commerce and disallowed the
Indian businessmen to join them.
3. They had poor corporate governance as they were opaque in functioning, hereditary in
control and shareholder had little power.
4. Sometimes their remuneration was linked to goals contrary to goals of the shareholders.
Example sales maximization instead of profits. So through successive companies Acts and
amendments, their power was curtailed and eventually abolished.
5. The extensive use of inter-corporate investments as a method of control had become
quite prevalent even before the managing agencies were abolished.
6. In many instances the Indian financers provided capital while European agencies made
all investments and business decisions.
7. They were seldom pioneering firms. Many of them were floated by unscrupulous
speculators whose goal was to get rich quick by offloading the shares and selling
mismanaged mills with a profit quickly.
8. The straddling of different fields by the same managing agency house, and the
concentration of capital in the hands of a few European managing agency houses,

facilitated the maintenance of individual or collective monopolies, and British

businessmen fully appreciated advantages of such monopolies for themselves.
Advantages
1. They provided capital when no one did. Banking sector was also not easily accessible.
2. They modernized Indian market. Introduced the practice of public capital whereas in
those days it used to be family capital only.
3. In the case of largest European managing agencies in tea, jute or engineering, the agent
had such a brand name that its involvement made it easier to raise capital from public
issues.
==================================================================================
Upcoming Test III: Ancient India (15 September)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OPTIONAL ONLINE TEST SERIES-2017
By: Selfstudyhistory.com
Total 6 Tests (Each Test of 250 marks and 3 hours’ time limit. Dates are flexible)
1. First Test: World History: 15 August

2. Second Test: Modern India:31 August
3. Third Test: Ancient India: 15 September
4. Fourth Test: Medieval India: 25 September
5. Fifth Test: Ancient+Medieval: 30 September
6. Sixth Test: World History+Modern India: 1 October
You are free to participate in any number of Tests you want.
Test series is open for Hindi medium students also but the solution will be provided in English
only.
Features:
 Questions asked will be as per new pattern.

 Mode of communication will be online only (no postal communication).
 Detailed and high quality solution will be provided.
 Papers will be evaluated with detailed inputs for improvement.
 Solution of important questions from previous years’ papers will be provided.
For more information, visit selfstudyhistory.com
Email ID: selfstudyhistory@gmail.com
WhatsApp No. 7011446954

02.test-Ii (Modern India) Solutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02.test-Ii (Modern India) Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELFSTUDYHISTORY.

COM ALL INDIA ONLINE HISTORY OPTIONAL TEST SERIES-2017

HISTORY OPTIONAL ONLINE TEST SERIES-2017

MODERN INDIA TEST-II

Selfstudyhistory.com: Contact Number: 7011446954, Email ID: selfstudyhistory@gmail.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Background of Indo-China War:

Boundary dispute in western part

Boundary dispute in eastern part

Asylum to Dalai Lama

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Ahmedabad Mill Strike

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

P.J. Marshall’s views (1968)

Lord Seely’s views

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

They were called ‘Modern Temples’ because:

Following steps were taken in these directions:

Following important steps were taken in this direction:

Change in Nehru’s views on big dams as a ‘Temple of Modern India’:

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Commercialisation of agriculture is a phenomenon where agriculture is governed by commercial

The following factors led to the commercialization of agriculture:

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Impact of the commercialization of agriculture on rural India

The commercialization of agriculture had mixed effects.

 Normally speaking, it should have acted as a catalyst in increasing agricultural productivity.

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Positive Impacts of Commercialization of Agriculture

 Financial difficulties led the government to further decentralize administration by promoting

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Lord Mayo’s Resolution of 1870 on financial decentralization

Lord Ripon’s Resolution of 1882

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

 He drew inspiration from the Vedantic tradition,

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Famines under the company’s rule:

Famine under the crown administration- (1858-1947)

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

How far commercialization of agriculture was responsible for famine?

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

English utilitarianism had a tremendous impact on agrarian policy in India:

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Social Impact of Utilitarianism on Indian society

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Importance of Sindh for British

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

Positive outcome of missionary activities in India

Negative impact of missionary activities in India

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

 aroused spirit of nationalism in rulers

 used threat of popular protest

MODERN INDIA TEST-II (SOLUTIONS) | © Selfstudyhistory.com

The Electric Telegraph