Social Sciences, asked by xxanujsharmaxx, 7 months ago

The effects of non-cooperation on the economic front were more dramatic. Foreign goods
were boycotted, liquor shops picketed, and foreign cloth burnt in huge bonfires. The
import of foreign cloth halved between 1921 and 1922, its value dropping from Rs 102
crore to Rs 57 crore. In many places merchants and traders refused to trade in foreign
goods or finance foreign trade. As the boycott movement spread, and people began
discarding imported clothes and wearing only Indian ones, production of Indian textile.

Q1. explain the following:
a) why growth of nationalism in the colonies is linked to an anti colonial movement?

b) how the first world war helped in the growth of the national movement in India?

c) why Indians were outraged by the rowlatt act?​

Answers

Answered by bhattacharyataniya74
2

Answer:

Explanation:

a)Colonisation affected people's freedom, and nationalist sentiments surged during the process of struggle against imperial domination. The sense of oppression and exploitation became a common bond for people from different walks of life, and this resulted in the growth of nationalist ideals. Thus, growth of nationalism in the colonies is linked to anti-colonial movements.

b)During the First World War, the British army conducted forced recruitment from rural areas in India. To finance the defence expenditure, high custom duties and income taxes were imposed. Also, during 1918-19 and 1920-21, crops failed in many parts of India, thereby resulting in acute food shortages. All this caused extensive anger and opposition against the British colonial rule, and the national movement of India headed towards a stronger, more definitive direction.

c)The Rowlatt Act was passed hurriedly through the Imperial Legislative Council despite opposition from Indian members. It gave the government autocratic powers to repress political activities besides allowing it to detain political prisoners without a trial, for two years. The Indian were outraged by this act as it was clearly undemocratic and oppressive, and hurt national sentiments and dignity.

Similar questions