Scribd
Upload
17 views5 pages

Colonial Impact on Indian Agriculture and Industry

The document discusses the impact of British colonial rule on Indian agriculture and industries. It introduced private property in land, new land revenue systems, and commercialized agriculture, prioritizing production for markets over local needs. Pre-British India had a blend of agriculture and handicrafts, and textiles, spices and other goods were exported. However, British industrial policies later protected domestic industries and restricted Indian goods, contributing to the decline of Indian handicrafts.

Uploaded by

sai
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views5 pages

Colonial Impact on Indian Agriculture and Industry

The document discusses the impact of British colonial rule on Indian agriculture and industries. It introduced private property in land, new land revenue systems, and commercialized agriculture, prioritizing production for markets over local needs. Pre-British India had a blend of agriculture and handicrafts, and textiles, spices and other goods were exported. However, British industrial policies later protected domestic industries and restricted Indian goods, contributing to the decline of Indian handicrafts.

Uploaded by

sai
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Module 3: ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

Impact on Agriculture, land relations and ecology, Condition of agriculture during colonialism era,
The Zamindari System: features and impact, British Industrial Policy in India, Condition of Indian
Industries before British colonialism, colonial policy and industrialization in India, Rise of British
Industries in India: Causes and Impact, Industrialization and Deindustrialization Debate.

Impact on Agriculture:

1. Introduction of private property in land


 During the pre-British India, no village community was deprived of land. Land was not
considered as the property of the king but property of the whole village community. The
king is entitled only to a share of the annual produce from it.
 The British conquest of India led to a revolution in the existing land system.
 The new revenue system introduced by the British in India superseded the traditional right
of the village community over the village land and created two forms of property in land:
 landlordism in some parts of the country. (Zamindari system)
 individual peasant proprietorship in others. (Ryotwari system)
 zamindari:
 It was Lord Cornwallis who, during his term of office, created the first group of
landlords in India by introducing the Permanent Land Settlement for Bengal, Bihar
and Orissa in 1793.
 These landlords were created out of the tax farmers in the provinces who had been
appointed by the political predecessors of the British rulers to collect revenue from
these provinces on a commission basis.
 The Permanent Land Settlement converted these revenue collectors into so many
landlords.
 Under the terms of the settlement, they had henceforth to make a fixed payment to
the government of the East India Company.
 Persons who rendered valuable military or other aid to the British government were
granted land and were transformed into landlords.
 While the British rule created large scale landed ownership in some parts of the country, in
other parts, it created individual peasant proprietorship.
 Ryotwari system:
 Under the Ryotwari, the individual cultivator was transformed into the owner of the
land he tilled.
 It was Sir Thomas Munro who felt that the landlord system was alien to the Indian
tradition. He advocated, in its place, the Ryotwari system which, he thought, would
more or less harmonize with that tradition. He initiated it in 1820, when he was the
Governor of Madras.
 The Ryotwari was subsequently extended to a number of other provinces
constituting fifty-one per cent of British Indian territory.
 Both Zamindari and Ryotwari system was based on private property in land which was
unknown to pre-British India.
 Thus, with the introduction of private property, it brought about an agrarian revolution.
 It created the prerequisite for the capitalist development of agriculture by introducing
individual ownership of land.
2. New land revenue system:
 When the village ownership of land existed, the village was a unit of assessment.
 The headman or the panchayat will pay to the king a specific portion of annual
agricultural produce as revenue.
 However, the new land system eliminated the village as a unit assessment and
created individual landowners thereby introduced the system of individual land
assessment and revenue payment.
 A new method of fixing the land revenue and its payment was introduced.
 Previously, the revenue due to the monarch was a specified portion of the year's
actual produce which varied from year to year.
 This was now replaced by the system of “fixed money payments”- irrespective of the
year's production, good or bad harvests, and whether more or less of the land was
cultivated or not.
 under the new system, fixed money payments assessed on land and not on the
annual produce were introduced, the landlord or the peasant proprietor had to
meet this revenue claim of the state irrespective of the failure of crop.
 This system inevitably brought a phenomena of mortgage, sale and purchase of
land.
 The new land system disastrously affected the communal character of the village, its
self-sufficient economy and communal social life.
 The new land system deprived the village of its agricultural-economic functions.
3. Commercialization of agriculture:
 The old objective of village agriculture i.e production for village use was replaced by
that for the market.
 With the introduction of privatization of land ownership and new revenue collection
system, farmers begin to produce mainly for the market.
 Farmers commercialize their produce mainly to pay the land revenue (which is fixed
at high rates) and also to pay the moneylenders.
 This is called commercialization of agriculture where farmers begin to produce only
a singly agricultural crop such as cotton, jute, wheat, sugarcane and oil-seeds.
 To pay the two dues, the cultivators had to rush into the markets just after harvest,
and to sell a large part of their produce at whatever price it fetched.
 Most of the poor cultivators had to buy back after about six months part of the crop
they had sold away at harvest time. The prices at harvest time were very low but in
six months' time they had risen to height which were absolutely ruinous to the
cultivator.
 Diversion of the village agriculture production, from serving the personal needs of
the peasant and village requirements to catering for the Indian and world market,
not only led to commercialization and specialization of crops but also disrupted the
ancient unity of agriculture and industry in the traditional Indian village.

Condition of Indian Industries before British colonialism:

 Although agriculture had dominated the Indian economy during the pre-British period yet
some Indian industries, producing certain special products, enjoyed worldwide reputation.
 In its true sense, India was not an industrial country, however, by the standards of the 17th
and 18th centuries, i.e., before the arrival of Europeans in India, India was the world's
'industrial workshop.'
 The "blending of agriculture and handicrafts" characterized India's traditional village
economy.
 Many of the handicrafts produced in the in India were quite famous.
 Among all those various famous urban handicrafts, textile handicrafts earned a special status
in international markets such as muslin, Banaras silk, Kashmir and Amritsar carpets etc.
 T.N. Mukherjee wrote, “A piece of the muslin 20 yards long and one yard wide could be to
pass through a finger ring and required six months to manufacture.”
 India was well known for other artistic handicraft industries which include jewellery made of
gold, silver, brass, copper, marble work, carving works in ivory, wood, stone etc.
 Artistic glassware was also produced and had earned international reputation during those
days.
 Besides, the other export items were cinnamon, pepper, opium, indigo etc. Throughout the
17th and 18th century, European countries were purchasing the above-mentioned
manufactures of India.
 Thus, considering this superior industrial state of India during the pre-British period, the
Industrial Commission (1918) recorded the following lines:
“At a time when the West of Europe, the birth place of modern industrial system, was
inhabited by uncivilised tribes, India was famous for the wealth of her rulers and for high
artistic skill of her craftsmen. And even at a much later period, when the merchant
adventurers from the west made their first appearance in India, the industrial development
of this country was at any rate, not inferior to that of the more advanced European nations.”

British Industrial Policy in India:

 From 1600-1757, ECI role in India was only limited to a trading company.
 Company brought goods or precious metals into India and exchange them for goods like
textiles, spices etc which is then sold in abroad.
 Profits of the company primarily came from the sale of Indian goods abroad.
 The company constantly tried to open new markets for Indian goods in Britain and other
countries- which increased the export of Indian goods thus encouraging their production.
 This is one the main reason why Indian rulers tolerated and even encouraged the
establishment of ECI factories in India.
 However, from the very beginning, British manufacturers were jealous of the popularity that
Indian textiles enjoyed in Britain.
 Therefore, the British manufacturers put pressure on the government to restrict and
prohibit sale of Indian goods in England.
 By 1720, laws had been passed forbidding the wear and use of printed or dyed cotton
clothes.
 Moreover, heavy duties were imposed on the import of plain clothes.
 Other European countries, except Holland also prohibited the import of Indian cloth or
imposed heavy duties.
 In spite of these policies, Indian silk and cotton textiles continued its popularity until the
middle of 18th century when the English textile industry began to develop on the basis of the
new and advanced technology.
 After the battle of Plassey in 1757, the pattern of company’s relation with India also
underwent a drastic change.
 The company could use political control over Bengal to push Bengal weavers to sell their
products at cheaper rates and dictate their prices.
 The company monopolized the sale of raw cotton and made the Bengal weavers pay
exorbitant prices for it.
 The industrial revolution in Britain completely transformed British economic relations with
India. (Development of modern machines, factory system and capitalism).
 Cotton textile industry is said to have served as the main vehicle of the industrial
revolution in Britain- colonies export agriculture and raw materials to Britain and
Britain sold the finish products back to the colonies.
 The huge capital accumulated in the country was invested in new machinery and
factory system thereby leading to industrial expansion.
 The growing increase in population met the need of growing industries for more
labor and cheaper labor.
 With the Britishers growing interest and manufacture and commercial activities,
fought for more markets and colonies.
 With the industrial revolution, Indian handmade goods were unable to compete with much
cheaper products of British mills which have improved their productive capacity.
 The Britishers impose high tariff rates for Indian handicraft products to enter into British
markets while they enjoy free tax for their imports to India.
 Instead of exporting manufacturers, Indians were forced to export raw materials like raw
cotton, raw silk, indigo, tea etc.
 The main commercial policy of ECI in early 19 th century was solely based on the needs of the
British industry- transform India into a consumer of British manufacturers and supplier of
raw materials.

Deindustrialisation of Colonial India:

 The term deindustrialization referred to the "process of destruction of Indian handicraft


industries by competition from British manufactured products during the nineteenth
century."

 Causes of Deindustrialisation:

 The royal courts and urban aristocrats were the primary sources of demand for
these handicrafts' products- The abolition of the royal court eliminated one source
of demand for these crafts' products and the craftsmen gradually closed their
market.

 The technological revolution that accelerated throughout the nineteenth century in


the aftermath of the industrial revolution hastened the decline of traditional
handicrafts.

 Paper manufacturing, glass manufacturing, iron smelting (in Mysore, Chhota Nagpur,
and the Central Provinces), pottery, and other art industries were among those that
were unable to make the necessary adjustments to withstand the savage onslaught
of imported goods.

 Cheap and machine-made imports flooded the Indian market after the Charter Act
of 1813 allowing one-way free trade for the British Citizens- while Indians find it
difficult to enter European markets.

 Tariffs of nearly 80 percent were imposed on Indian textiles so that Indian cloth
could no longer be cheap. After 1820, European markets were virtually closed to
Indian exports.

Outcome of Deindustrialisation:
 It resulted in the devastation of India's handicraft industry and resulted in India's
ruralisation.

 The British put an end to the "blending of agriculture and handicrafts" by destroying the
spinning wheel and breaking up the Indian handloom.

 The village economy's internal balance was shattered. As a result, artisans were forced out
of their traditional occupations and turned to agriculture with no other options left.

 Rural unemployment and underemployment were caused by an imbalance in occupational


structure as a result of such deindustrialisation.

 The trade-to-GDP ratio fell, and international trade reshaped the domestic economy's
structure. India became a major market for British-made cotton yarns and cloths, as well as a
major supplier of grain.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Before colonial rule, India was recognized as an 'industrial workshop' due to its renowned handicraft industries like textiles, jewelry, and art which had significant international demand. However, British economic policies such as imposing prohibitive duties and restrictions on Indian textiles and promoting British industrial goods resulted in the rapid decline of these traditional industries. The competition from mechanized British products led to the destruction of the local handicrafts industry, which was further hampered by the lack of policy support and the transformation of India's economy to serve British industrial interests. Consequently, India was forced to import British goods and export raw materials, fundamentally altering its 'industrial workshop' status and subjecting it to the colonial economic dominance .

The East India Company played a pivotal role in transforming India's economic structure during British colonialism. Initially, it operated purely as a trading company, exporting Indian goods like textiles and spices, thus supporting local industries. However, after gaining political control post the Battle of Plassey in 1757, ECI shifted focus to benefiting British economic interests. They imposed control over Indian resources, monopolized key markets, pushed Indian textile producers to sell at low rates, and prohibited the use of Indian goods in Britain. The revenue extracted was invested in British industries, leading to the industrial decline in India and a shift towards producing raw materials for British industries while providing an assured market for British goods in India, dismantling the previous economic structure and significant industrial capabilities of India .

The British industrial revolution drastically influenced the economic relationship between India and Britain by shifting India into the roles of raw material supplier and market for British finished goods. Technological advancements in Britain fostered industrial growth that needed raw materials which India abundantly provided, such as cotton and indigo, while the export of British manufactured textiles to India suppressed local artisans. This relationship was cemented by policies that facilitated free trade for British goods but restricted Indian exports through high tariffs. Thus, India’s economy was restructured to prioritize British industrial needs, resulting in deindustrialization, loss of indigenous industries, and altering India's economic trajectory under British hegemony .

The introduction of the Permanent Land Settlement (Zamindari system) and the Ryotwari system marked a significant shift towards capitalist agricultural development by formalizing private land ownership. These systems allowed landholders to have absolute rights to land, which they could buy, sell, and mortgage, thus integrating the agricultural economy into a capitalist framework. The fixed money payments required under these systems incentivized landowners and cultivators to maximize production for market sales as a means to generate revenue, thus fostering a profit-oriented agricultural sector. This move aimed at creating a class of prosperous landlords and farmers who could invest back into their lands, facilitating agricultural advancements, though it also imposed harsh economic pressures on traditional village systems .

The British land revenue policies fundamentally altered traditional land ownership and agricultural practices by introducing private property in land which was unknown in pre-British India. The village, formerly a unit of collective landholding and revenue assessment, lost its communal ownership structure. The Zamindari system was introduced in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, creating landlords out of tax farmers who were previously just revenue collectors, while the Ryotwari system turned individual cultivators into owners of the land they tilled. These changes led to the commercialization of agriculture because farmers started producing for the market rather than personal use, primarily to meet the high fixed land revenue demands imposed by the British, regardless of actual agricultural output. This system also led to frequent mortgaging, sale, and purchase of land, disrupting the self-sufficient economic and social life of village communities .

The introduction of the fixed money land revenue system marked significant shifts in the Indian economy. It eliminated the village as the unit of assessment, dismantling traditional collective land ownership and replacing it with individual asset holding which increased land commodification. Farmers were forced to sell their produce immediately post-harvest to fulfill revenue obligations, often at depressed prices, which began the shift towards market-oriented agriculture. This commercialization eroded traditional agricultural practices focused on subsistence, thus disrupting local economies. The system's rigidity, unaffected by yield, fostered land mortgaging and frequent sales, destabilizing rural economic stability and increasing the vulnerability of cultivators to market fluctuations .

The British industrial policy led to the deindustrialization of India by allowing British machine-made goods to flood Indian markets, out-competing traditional handicrafts. Heavy duties on Indian textiles in Europe and one-way free trade permitted for British products further devastated local industries. Technological advancements in Britain accelerated this decline because Indian crafts could not compete with the cheaper and mass-produced British goods. This policy resulted in the loss of indigenous crafts, forcing artisans to abandon their trades and contribute to rural unemployment. The decline in traditional industries also led to a structural occupational imbalance, with many artisans migrating to agriculture and disrupting the village economy .

British policies reshaped India's global trade position by transforming it from a major exporter of finished goods to a supplier of raw materials and a consumer of British manufactured goods. Initially, India was a significant exporter of textiles and crafts globally; however, the imposition of high duties and restrictions on Indian goods in Britain and Europe curtailed this trade. The Charter Act of 1813 facilitated one-way free trade favoring British manufacturers. This led to the deindustrialization of Indian crafts as imported British goods dominated the market. Consequently, India’s role shifted to supporting Britain's industrial economy, as raw materials like cotton and indigo were exported while finished goods were imported back into India, aligning India's trade position to suit British economic interests .

The commercialization of agriculture under British rule profoundly impacted rural life and the economy in India. The requirement for fixed monetary revenue irrespective of yield led farmers to shift from subsistence farming to cash crop production, primarily to meet tax and loan obligations. This change prioritized market-oriented crop selection over traditional crop diversity crucial for local consumption. As farmers needed immediate cash post-harvest to fulfill these obligations, they were often compelled to sell crops at low market prices, resulting in economic vulnerability. The reliance on single cash crops heightened risks of market volatility and environmental factors, diminishing food security. The disruption of traditional practices also strained the social fabric, contributing to rural instability and the exacerbation of poverty .

The dismantling of traditional handicrafts during the colonial period had profound effects on India's socioeconomic structure. The decline of the handicraft industry led to widespread artisan unemployment and a shift towards agriculture, resulting in an imbalanced occupational structure. This shift amplified rural unemployment and underemployment, causing increased poverty and economic distress across rural sectors. Additionally, the loss of local industries diminished community self-sufficiency and disrupted the traditional blend of crafts and agriculture that sustained village economies. This economic dislocation contributed to social instability and increased dependency on agriculture, thereby weakening the socio-economic fabric of traditional Indian society .

You might also like