Explanation:   The post of Zamindars wasn’t permanent. Their land was confiscated if they were unable to pay the already fixed revenue.

Explanation:

 

By the terms of the settlement, the rajas and taluqdars were recognised as zamindars. They were asked to collect rent from the peasants and pay revenue to the Company. The amount to be paid was fixed permanently, that is, it was not to be increased ever in future. It was felt that this would ensure a regular flow of revenue into the Company’s coffers and at the same time encourage the zamindars to invest in improving the land.The Permanent Settlement, however, created problems. Company officials soon discovered that the zamindars were in fact not investing in the improvement of land. The revenue that had been fixed was so high that the zamindars found it difficult to pay. Anyone who failed to pay the revenue lost his zamindari.

Explanation:

 

Finally, in 1765 the Mughal emperor appointed the Company as the Diwan of the provinces of Bengal. The Diwani allowed the Company to use the vast revenue resources of Bengal. This solved a major problem that the Company had earlier faced. From the early eighteenth century its trade with India had expanded. But it had to buy most of the goods in India with gold and silver imported from Britain. This was because at this time Britain had no goods to sell in India. The outflow of gold from Britain slowed after the Battle of Plassey, and entirely stopped after the assumption of Diwani. Now revenues from India could finance Company expenses. These revenues could be used to purchase cotton and silk textiles in India, maintain Company troops, and meet the cost of building the Company fort and offices at Calcutta.

Explanation:

 

Statement 1 is correct. Often, religious and charismatic leaders’ messiahs emerged and promised divine intervention and an end to their suffering at the hands of the outsiders, and asked their fellow tribals to rise and rebel against foreign authority. Most of these leaders claimed to derive their authority from God. They also often claimed that they possessed magical powers, for example, the power to make the enemies bullets ineffective.Statement 2 is incorrect. Not all outsiders were attacked as enemies. Often there was no violence against the non-tribal poor, who worked in tribal villages in supportive economic roles, or who had social relations with the tribals such as telis, gwalas, lohars, carpenters, potters, weavers, washermen, barbers, drummers, and bonded labourers and domestic servants of the outsiders. Statement 3 is correct. Protest often took the form of spontaneous attacks on outsiders, looting their property and expelling them from their villages. Clashes with authorities were violent and tribals resorted to armed resistance as well.

Explanation:

 

Most Company officials began to feel that investment in land had to be encouraged and agriculture had to be improved. How was this to be done? After two decades of debate on the question, the Company finally introduced the Permanent Settlement in 1793. By the terms of the settlement, the rajas and taluqdars were recognised as zamindars. They were asked to collect rent from the peasants and pay revenue to the Company. The amount to be paid was fixed permanently, that is, itwas not to be increased ever in future. It was felt that this would ensure a regular flow of revenue into the Company’s coffers and at the same time encourage the zamindars to invest in improving the land. Since the revenue demand of the state would not be increased, the zamindar would benefit from increased production from the land.

Explanation:

 

The British were uncomfortable with groups who moved about and did not have a fixed home. They wanted tribal groups to settle down and become peasant cultivators. Settled peasants were easier to control and administer than people who were always on the move. The British also wanted a regular revenue source for the state. So they introduced land settlements – that is, they measured the land, defined the rights of each individual to that land, and fixed the revenue demand for the state. Some peasants were declared landowners, others tenants.

Explanation:

 

The first jute mill was set up near Kolkata in 1859 at Rishra. After Partition in 1947, the jute mills remained in India but three-fourth of the jute producing area went to Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan).

Explanation:

 

In the North Western Provinces of the Bengal Presidency (most of this area is now in Uttar Pradesh), an Englishman called Holt Mackenzie devised the new system which came into effect in 1822. He felt that the village was an important social institution in north Indian society and needed to be preserved. Under his directions, collectors went from village to village, inspecting the land, measuring the fields, and recording the customs and rights of different groups. The estimated revenue of each plot within a village was added up to calculate the revenue that each village (mahal) had to pay. This demand was to be revised periodically, not permanently fixed. The charge of collecting the revenue and paying it to the Company was given to the village headman, rather than the zamindar. This system came to be known as the mahalwari settlement.

Explanation:

 

The nationalist analysts exposed the force of British arguments that the growth of foreign trade and railways implied development for India. They argued back that the pattern of foreign trade was unfavourable to India. It relegated India to a position of importer of finished goods and exporter of raw materials and foodstuffs. The development of railways, they argued, was, not coordinated with India’s industrial needs and it ushered in a commercial rather than an industrial revolution. The net effect of the railways was to enable foreign goods to outsell indigenous products. Further, the benefits from impetus to steel, machinery and capital investment in railways accrued to the British. G.V. Joshi remarked, “Expenditure on railways should be seen as an Indian subsidy to British industries.”

Explanation:

 

Statement 1 is correct because Land revenue policies made land all over the country saleable, mortgage able and alienable. Cultivator was left to status of tenant at the mercy of zamindar or government whose land could be taken away if he failed to pay revenue at time.Statement 2 is not correct because even in Mahalwari system revenue was periodically revised.Statement 3 is correct. Mahalwari system was implemented mainly in ganga valley, north-western provinces, parts of central India and Punjab.

Explanation:

 

British adopted discriminatory approach towards Indian Industries from the very beginning. However, with the growth of National Movement by 1920 and 30’s the extensive pressure forced Britishers to grant tariff protection to Indian Industries. However even in its implementation discrimination was being pursued. Indian owned industries were given inadequate protection whereas british imports were given special privileges under the stated system of Imperial preferences. Hence (c) is the correct answer.

Explanation:

 

Weavers often belonged to communities that specialised in weaving. Their skills were passed on from one generation to the next. The tanti weavers of Bengal, the julahas or momin weavers of north India, sale and kaikollar and devangs of south India are some of the communities famous for weaving. Hence 1, 2, 4 and 5 are weaver community.For printed cloth the weavers needed the help of specialist block printers known as chhipigars. Hence 3 is not weaver community. Hence Answer is C.

Explanation:

 

By the early eighteenth century, worried by the popularity of Indian textiles, wool and silk makers in England began protesting against the import of Indian cotton textiles. In 1720, the British government enacted a legislation banning the use of printed cotton textiles – chintz – in England. Interestingly, this Act was known as the Calico Act.

Explanation:

 

Indian intellectuals of the first half of the 19th century had adopted a positive attitude towards British rule in the hope that Britain would help modernize India. The process of disillusionment set in gradually after 1860 Leaders like DadabhaiNaoroji, Justice M G Ranade and R C Dutta propounded the drain theory associated with the colonial rule. The early leaders highlighted the following issues due to colonial rule: 1) progressive decline and ruin of India’s traditional handicrafts. 2) railways had not been coordinated with India’s industrial needs. 3) saw foreign capital as an unmitigated evil which exploited and impoverished India. 4) criticized the colonial pattern of finance. Taxes were so raised, they averred, as to overburden the poor while letting the rich, especially the foreign capitalists and bureaucrats, go scot-free. 5) On the expenditure side, they pointed out that the emphasis was on serving Britain‘s imperial needs while the developmental and welfare departments were starved. 6) The nationalist leaders pointed out that a large part of India‘s capital and wealth was drained to Britain in the form of salaries and pensions of British civil and military officials working in India known as home charges.

Explanation:

 

The cultivator had neither the means nor any incentive to invest in agriculture. The zamindar had no roots in the villages, while the Government spent little on agricultural, technical or mass education.All this, together with fragmentation of land due to sub-infeudation, made it difficult to introduce modern technology which caused a perpetually low level of productivity.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, another significant trend was the emergence of the commercialisation of agriculture. So far, agriculture’ had been a way of life rather than a business enterprise. Now agriculture began to be influenced by commercial considerations. Certain specialised crops began to be grown not for consumption in the village but for sale in the national and even international markets.

Explanation:

 

The estates of the Burdwan raj were not the only ones sold during the closing years of the eighteenth century. Over 75 per cent of the zamindaris changed hands after the Permanent Settlement. In introducing the Permanent Settlement, British officials hoped to resolve the problems they had been facing since the conquest of Bengal. By the 1770s, the rural economy in Bengal was in crisis, with recurrent famines and declining agricultural output. Officials felt that agriculture, trade and the revenue resources of the state could all be developed by encouraging investment in agriculture. This could be done by securing rights of property and permanently fixing the rates of revenue demand. If the revenue demand of the state was permanently fixed, then the Company could look forward to a regular flow of revenue, while entrepreneurs could feel sure of earning a profit from their investment, since the state would not siphon it off by increasing its claim. The process, officials hoped, would lead to the emergence of a class of yeomen farmers and rich landowners who would have the capital and enterprise to improve agriculture. Nurtured by the British, this class would also be loyal to the Company. The problem, however, lay in identifying individuals who could both improve agriculture and contract to pay the fixed revenue to the state. After a prolonged debate amongst Company officials, the Permanent Settlement was made with the rajas and taluqdars of Bengal. They were now classified as zamindars, and they had to pay the revenue demand that was fixed in perpetuity. In terms of this definition, the zamindar was not a landowner in the village, but a revenue Collector of the state.

Explanation:

 

The revenue system that was introduced in the Bombay Deccan came to be known as the ryotwari settlement. Unlike the Bengal system, the revenue was directly settled with the ryot. The average income from different types of soil was estimated, the revenue-paying capacity of the ryot was assessed and a proportion of it fixed as the share of the state. The lands were resurveyed every 30 years and the revenue rates increased. Therefore, the revenue demand was no longer permanent.

Explanation:

 

Statement 1 is incorrect as British Administration apthetic attitude towards agriculture was one of the prime factors behind its backwardness and widespread poverty. Even though bulk of the revenue was realized from agriculture it did not take any efforts to improve the same.Statement 2 is incorrect as use of inorganic fertilizers was unknown and bulk of natural manure was wasted. This indicated backward state of agriculture practises.Statement 3 is correct. The overcrowding of agriculture and increase in the subinfeudation led to subdivision and fragmentation of land into small holdings most of which could not maintain their cultivators.

Explanation:

 

In the British territories in the south there was a similar move away from the idea of Permanent Settlement. The new system that was devised came to be known as the ryotwar (or ryotwari ). It was tried on a small scale by Captain Alexander Read in some of the areas that were taken over by the Company after the wars with Tipu Sultan. Subsequently developed by Thomas Munro, this system was gradually extended all over south India. Read and Munro felt that in the south there were no traditional zamindars. The settlement, they argued, had to be made directly with the cultivators (ryots) who had tilled the land for generations.

Explanation:

 

While many zamindars were facing a crisis at the end of the eighteenth century, a group of rich peasants were consolidating their position in the villages. In Francis Buchanan’s survey of the Dinajpur district in North Bengal we have a vivid description of this class of rich peasants known as jotedars. By the early nineteenth century, jotedars had acquired vast areas of land – sometimes as much as several thousand acres. They controlled local trade as well as moneylending, exercising immense power over the poorer cultivators of the region. A large part of their land was cultivated through sharecroppers (adhiyars or bargadars) who brought their own ploughs, laboured in the field, and handed over half the produce to the jotedars after the harvest.

The jotedars were most powerful in North Bengal, although rich peasants and village headmen were emerging as commanding figures in the countryside in other parts of Bengal as well. In some places they were called haoladars, elsewhere they were known as gantidars or mandals. Their rise inevitably weakened zamindari authority.