Hindi, asked by Anonymous, 11 months ago

how did the character act of 1813 cause deindustrialisation in India? ​

Answers

Answered by Anonymous
6

Explanation:

This Act asserted the Crown's sovereignty over British possessions in India. Company's rule and trade monopoly in India was extended to another 20 years. Monopoly was ended except for the trade in tea and with China. It empowered the local governments to tax people subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Answered by aditya7071
1

Answer:

Charter Act of 1813

Read in another language

Watch

Edit

The East India Company Act 1813, also known as the Charter Act 1813, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which renewed the charter issued to the British East India Company, and continued the Company's rule in India. However, the Company's commercial monopoly was ended, except for the tea and opium trade and the trade with China, this reflecting the growth of British power in India

The East India Company Act, 1813

[1]

(Charter Act of 1813)

Parliament of the United Kingdom

Long title

An Act for continuing in the East India Company, for a further Term, the Possession of the British Territories in India, together with certain exclusive Privileges; for establishing further Regulations for the Government of the said Territories, and the better Administration of Justice within the same; and for regulating the Trade to and from the Places within the Limits of the said Company's Charter

Citation

53 Geo. 3 c. 155

Dates

Royal assent

21 July 1813

Other legislation

Repealed by

Government of India Act 1915

Status: Repealed

The Act expressly asserted the Crown's sovereignty over British India, allotted 100,000 rupees, and permitted Christian missionaries to propagate English and preach their religion. The power of the provincial governments and courts in India over European British subjects was also strengthened by the Act, and financial provision was also made to encourage a revival in Indian literature and for the promotion of science.[2]

The literary critic and historian Gauri Viswanathan identifies two major changes to the relation between Britain and India that came about as the result of the act: first, the assumption by the British of a new responsibility for Indian people's education; and, second, the relaxation of controls on missionary activity.[3] Whereas previously educational provision was at the discretion of the Governor-General of India, the Act overturned this laissez-faire status quo by establishing an obligation to promote Indian people's "interests and happiness" and "religious and moral improvement" – a responsibility the British state did not bear to British people at the time of the Act's passage.[4] Viswanathan attributes the impetus for the new educational responsibilities to the mood in the English Parliament. Parliamentarians were concerned with the extravagant lifestyles of East India Company officials and the company's ruthless exploitation of natural resources, and, feeling that the British ought to lead by example but lacking the ability to curtail the activities of wealthy Nabobs, sought to remedy perceived injustices by seeking Indians' welfare and improvement.[5]

Prior to the 1813 legislation, the British Parliament and the East India Company had refused to countenance missionary activity in India, and proscribed the Bible and forbade religious education, in support of a policy of religious neutrality and on the basis that, if exposed to Christianity, Indians may have felt threatened and thus would have posed a threat to British commercial ventures.[6] The lifting of the prohibition, when it occurred, was not however a victory for missionaries, and did not precipitate official support for their activity; instead, they were subject to stringent checks

Similar questions