What is colonialism? Discuss its impact on Indian peasantry.
Answers
Answered by
1
Colonialism is a practice or policy of acquiring and taking over the administration of a territory by another country by force with the intention of exploiting it politically and economically. This is done even by filling up the country with the colonialist's own people and/or local, subservient satraps who toe the line of the overseas power.
In the Indian context, the back of the peasantry was broken with the introduction of cash crops like indigo and opium in place of food crops like rice, maize and wheat. Cotton, which was grown in India, too found its way to places like Manchester in Great Britain. All this was done for the economic gain of the British.
In the Indian context, the back of the peasantry was broken with the introduction of cash crops like indigo and opium in place of food crops like rice, maize and wheat. Cotton, which was grown in India, too found its way to places like Manchester in Great Britain. All this was done for the economic gain of the British.
Answered by
0
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.
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.
Similar questions