What is Colonalism? Discuss its impact on Indian peasantry?
Answers
Answered by
2
The conflict in rural society was
essentially centered on the
appropriation of agrarian surplus by
various agencies. The colonial state
extracted surplus through heavy land
revenue demand, taxes and fines. In
addition, various intermediate
agencies, like usurers and landlords,
extracted a large portion of produce in
the form of interest and rent. It
pressed heavily upon the small peasants
and tenants and led to numerous anti-
usury protests and rent conflicts
between the superior and inferior land
holders (Nand 2003: 739-740).
In 1873, an influential Kili of Jamburi
in Poona organized a series of attacks
with the help of a well-trained group
on the professional moneylenders who
habitually cheated and oppressed the
hill tribes. In May 1875, peasants
unitedly attacked the property of
usurers in the Deccan districts. In
several places stocks and houses
belonging to the moneylenders were
burnt and their property was
plundered. Usually Marwari and
Gujarati moneylenders, who constituted
the dominant sections of usurers, were
the exclusive targets of these attacks.
The village panchayats also declared
complete boycott of Marwari and
Gujarati moneylenders. Through common
agreement called sampatras the village
communities forbade all section of rural
society to assist moneylenders in any
form, and fines and social boycott were
declared for ryots who violated the
agreement (Nand 2003: 756).
essentially centered on the
appropriation of agrarian surplus by
various agencies. The colonial state
extracted surplus through heavy land
revenue demand, taxes and fines. In
addition, various intermediate
agencies, like usurers and landlords,
extracted a large portion of produce in
the form of interest and rent. It
pressed heavily upon the small peasants
and tenants and led to numerous anti-
usury protests and rent conflicts
between the superior and inferior land
holders (Nand 2003: 739-740).
In 1873, an influential Kili of Jamburi
in Poona organized a series of attacks
with the help of a well-trained group
on the professional moneylenders who
habitually cheated and oppressed the
hill tribes. In May 1875, peasants
unitedly attacked the property of
usurers in the Deccan districts. In
several places stocks and houses
belonging to the moneylenders were
burnt and their property was
plundered. Usually Marwari and
Gujarati moneylenders, who constituted
the dominant sections of usurers, were
the exclusive targets of these attacks.
The village panchayats also declared
complete boycott of Marwari and
Gujarati moneylenders. Through common
agreement called sampatras the village
communities forbade all section of rural
society to assist moneylenders in any
form, and fines and social boycott were
declared for ryots who violated the
agreement (Nand 2003: 756).
Answered by
1
Colonialism is the practice of forming a settlement or colony by a group of people, who seek to take control of territories or countries. It usually involves large scale immigration of people to a 'new' location and the expansion of their civilization and culture into this area. Colonialism may involve dominating the original inhabitants of the area known as indigenous population. England colonized many area in the world. They had colonies in India, colonized Ireland and parts of North America. The concept of colonialism is to be used in a method of expansion of a country's ownership of land, resources, and economic development. Some of the countries who were most active in setting up new colonies seemed to believe that it was their duty to help bring less educated and poorer societies into their hold so they could teach them a new culture and expand their horizons. Some countries simply did it to get their hands on the material resources of the new country.
India at that time had around eighty percent of population involved in agriculture and its seventy percent of the income came from agriculture sector. The British changed the nature and structure of Indian economy. Land was heavily assessed for revenue, a new class of landlords emerged; increasing rural indebtedness put the peasants in poverty; a large number of intermediaries caused low productivity and finally the impoverishment of the peasantry was accelerated. Ownership of land was vested with non-cultivators whereas the actual cultivators had no claim over land. The government became the rent receiver; the landlords were rent-collectors; and the peasants mere rent payers. A huge amount of their yield went into taxes and they could not use improved methods to increase their production. Indian agriculture could not sustain the pressure from the growing dependence on land, the increasing government dues and the exploitation of unscrupulous landlords. As a result, agriculture became stagnant and per acre yields declined. Since the cultivator had no ownership of the land he cultivated, his interest in increasing the production dipped. More production to him directly meant more taxes and agriculture declined steadily. The failure of Indian handicrafts also resulted in artisans' migration to agricultural land as they had no other option but agriculture. Due to extra pressure, people competed among themselves for a plot of land and were exploited by rack-renting of the landlords. The system of subletting the right to collect revenue created a chain of intermediaries and led to subdivision and the fragmentation of land into small holdings. Per capita land shrunk and income from land could not meet the livelihood of the cultivators. All apart, every one wanted to be a rent collector instead of being cultivator for which subletting and intermediaries increased. Indian peasants still used primitive technique and the government deliberately neglected agriculture. The government spent millions of rupees on the railways to protect and promote the British trade interests, but very little was done for irrigation and that was the only field of government investment. In a nut shell agriculture was left at the mercy of nature.
plz mark brainliest
India at that time had around eighty percent of population involved in agriculture and its seventy percent of the income came from agriculture sector. The British changed the nature and structure of Indian economy. Land was heavily assessed for revenue, a new class of landlords emerged; increasing rural indebtedness put the peasants in poverty; a large number of intermediaries caused low productivity and finally the impoverishment of the peasantry was accelerated. Ownership of land was vested with non-cultivators whereas the actual cultivators had no claim over land. The government became the rent receiver; the landlords were rent-collectors; and the peasants mere rent payers. A huge amount of their yield went into taxes and they could not use improved methods to increase their production. Indian agriculture could not sustain the pressure from the growing dependence on land, the increasing government dues and the exploitation of unscrupulous landlords. As a result, agriculture became stagnant and per acre yields declined. Since the cultivator had no ownership of the land he cultivated, his interest in increasing the production dipped. More production to him directly meant more taxes and agriculture declined steadily. The failure of Indian handicrafts also resulted in artisans' migration to agricultural land as they had no other option but agriculture. Due to extra pressure, people competed among themselves for a plot of land and were exploited by rack-renting of the landlords. The system of subletting the right to collect revenue created a chain of intermediaries and led to subdivision and the fragmentation of land into small holdings. Per capita land shrunk and income from land could not meet the livelihood of the cultivators. All apart, every one wanted to be a rent collector instead of being cultivator for which subletting and intermediaries increased. Indian peasants still used primitive technique and the government deliberately neglected agriculture. The government spent millions of rupees on the railways to protect and promote the British trade interests, but very little was done for irrigation and that was the only field of government investment. In a nut shell agriculture was left at the mercy of nature.
plz mark brainliest
Similar questions