ProTeacher

Tag: Class 11th Economics NCERT Answers

  • Class 11th Economics Indian Economics Chapter-1 Question-8

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Question 8.

    Critically appraise some of the shortfalls of the industrial policy pursued by the British colonial administration.

    The industrial policy followed by the British colonial administration in India suffered from several serious shortfalls. These policies were designed to serve British interests rather than promote balanced industrial development in India.

    One major shortfall was the absence of a clear and comprehensive industrial policy. The British government never made a serious attempt to promote indigenous industries. Industrial growth occurred only in a few selected areas and was largely left to private British enterprise.

    Another important weakness was the neglect of basic and capital goods industries. Industries such as iron and steel, heavy machinery, and chemical industries were not encouraged because their development would have competed with British industries.

    The British industrial policy also resulted in regional imbalances. Industrial development was concentrated mainly in port cities like Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, while the interior regions remained largely backward and underdeveloped.

    Further, the policy failed to protect traditional and small-scale industries. Indian handicrafts and cottage industries were exposed to unfair competition from cheap machine-made imports, leading to their decline and widespread unemployment among artisans.

    Finally, the British promoted India mainly as a supplier of raw materials and a market for finished British goods. This led to what is described as the “colonial pattern of industrialisation”, which did not generate self-sustaining or diversified industrial growth.

    Conclusion
    In short, British industrial policy was exploitative and unbalanced. It hindered India’s industrial development and left the economy weak and dependent at the time of independence.

  • Class 11th Economics Indian Economics Chapter-1 Question-7

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Question 7.

    What objectives did the British intend to achieve through their policies of infrastructure development in India?

    The British developed infrastructure in India mainly to serve their colonial and economic interests, not to promote balanced economic development. Their key objectives were as follows:

    1. Facilitation of Trade and Raw Material Supply
    Roads, railways, ports, and canals were developed to ensure the easy transport of raw materials like cotton, jute, coal, tea, and indigo from inland areas to ports for export to Britain.

    2. Expansion of Market for British Goods
    Improved transport and communication helped British machine-made goods reach even remote Indian markets, increasing sales and profits for British industries.

    3. Administrative and Military Control
    Infrastructure aided faster movement of British officials, army, and police, helping the colonial government maintain law and order and suppress revolts.

    4. Strengthening Colonial Exploitation
    Infrastructure supported the extraction of resources at low cost, making India a raw material base and captive marketfor British industries.

    5. Integration of Indian Economy with British Economy
    The British designed infrastructure to link India’s economy closely with Britain, benefiting the imperial economy rather than Indian industrial growth.

    Conclusion
    Thus, the infrastructure developed by the British was colonial in nature, aimed at strengthening British control and profits, while offering limited long-term benefits to Indian economic development.

  • Class 11th Economics Indian Economics Exercise 1 Question 6

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Question 6.

    “The traditional handicrafts industries were ruined under the British rule.” Do you agree with this view? Give reasons in support of your answer.

    Yes, I agree with this view. The traditional handicrafts industries in India were severely ruined during British rule due to several economic and political reasons.

    One major reason was the discriminatory trade policies of the British government. Indian handicraft goods faced heavy duties in British markets, while British machine-made goods were allowed to enter India at very low or no duties. This made Indian products expensive and uncompetitive.

    Another important factor was the flooding of Indian markets with cheap machine-made goods produced after the Industrial Revolution in Britain. These goods were cheaper and produced in large quantities, leading to a sharp fall in demand for Indian handmade products.

    The loss of royal patronage also contributed to the decline of handicrafts. Earlier, Indian rulers and courts supported artisans, but with the collapse of Indian kingdoms under British rule, this support disappeared.

    Moreover, the British government did not provide any protection or support to Indian handicrafts. Instead, India was reduced to a supplier of raw materials and a market for British manufactured goods.

    In conclusion, British economic policies led to the systematic destruction of Indian handicrafts, resulting in large-scale unemployment among artisans and contributing to the process of deindustrialisation in India.

    OR YOU CAN ANSWER IN A BIT DETAILED MANNER:-

    Yes, I fully agree with this view that the traditional handicrafts industries were ruined under British rule.
    The destruction of these industries was mainly due to the colonial economic policies of the British. The reasons are explained below in simple and clear terms:

    Reasons for the Ruin of Traditional Handicrafts in India

    1. Discriminatory Trade Policies
    The British followed a policy that favored British industries. Indian handicraft products faced heavy export duties in England, while British machine-made goods entered India freely or at low duties. This made Indian products costlier and uncompetitive.

    2. Flooding of British Machine-Made Goods
    With the Industrial Revolution in Britain, factories produced cloth and other goods cheaply and in large quantities. These machine-made goods flooded Indian markets and replaced handmade Indian products, causing a sharp decline in demand for handicrafts.

    3. Loss of Royal Patronage
    Before British rule, Indian artisans received support from Indian rulers, zamindars, and princely courts. The British destroyed or weakened these systems, and with the decline of Indian royalty, artisans lost their traditional patrons.

    4. Decline of Urban Handicraft Centres
    Many famous centres of handicrafts, such as Dacca (muslin), Murshidabad, Surat, and Masulipatnam, declined as artisans were forced to abandon their crafts due to falling incomes.

    5. No State Support for Indian Industries
    The British government never tried to modernise or protect Indian handicrafts. Instead, they promoted British manufacturers to use India as a market for finished goods and a source of raw materials.

    Conclusion

    Thus, British rule led to systematic deindustrialisation of India. Traditional handicrafts were unable to compete with cheap machine-made imports and, as a result, millions of artisans lost their livelihoods and were forced to turn to agriculture or menial labour.

  • Class 11th Economics Indian Economics Chapter-1 Question-5

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Question 5: What was the two-fold motive behind the systematic de-industrialisation effected by the British in pre-independent India?

    Answer:
    The British systematically de-industrialised India with two main objectives:

    1. To make India a supplier of raw materials:
      India was reduced to the status of a raw material exporting country, supplying cotton, jute, indigo and other primary products to British industries. This ensured a steady and cheap supply of inputs for Britain’s rapidly expanding industrial sector

    2. To turn India into a market for British manufactured goods:
      By destroying India’s traditional handicraft industries, the British created a huge market for finished goods produced in Britain. Indian consumers were forced to depend on imported British products, which helped Britain maximise its industrial profits

    Together, these motives led to the decline of indigenous industries, large-scale unemployment, and the long-term industrial backwardness of the Indian economy under colonial rule.

    Lets dive in more to learn about following terms:-

    Industrialisation

    Industrialisation means the process in which a country starts making more goods in factories and industries instead of producing things by hand at home.

    In simple words:

    • People move from traditional work (like farming or handcrafts)

    • Machines and factories are used

    • Large-scale production increases

    • More jobs are created in industries

    Example:
    When cloth is made in textile mills using machines instead of handlooms at home — that’s industrialisation.

    Deindustrialisation

    Deindustrialisation means the decline or destruction of industries in a country.

    In simple words:

    • Factories close or weaken

    • Traditional industries collapse

    • People lose industrial jobs

    • Production shifts back to raw materials or agriculture

    Example:
    When British factory-made cloth flooded Indian markets and Indian handloom weavers lost their livelihoods — that was deindustrialisation.

    In one line difference (very useful for exams):

    • Industrialisation → Growth of industries and factory production

    • Deindustrialisation → Decline of industries and loss of manufacturing

  • 11th Economics Indian Economy Chapter-1 Question-4

    Q4. Name some modern industries which were in operation in our country at the time of independence.

    At the time of India’s independence in 1947, the country had developed only a limited and uneven base of modern industries under British colonial rule. Industrial development was slow and largely shaped by colonial interests rather than national needs. Nevertheless, a few modern industries were in operation.

    The cotton textile industry was one of the earliest and most important modern industries. It was mainly located in the western regions of India, particularly Maharashtra and Gujarat, and was largely dominated by Indian entrepreneurs. The jute industry was another significant sector, concentrated mainly in Bengal, and was largely controlled by European interests. These two industries formed the backbone of India’s factory-based manufacturing at the time.

    The iron and steel industry marked a major step toward industrialisation. The establishment of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) in 1907 at Jamshedpur was a landmark development. It supplied steel required for railways, construction and basic industrial needs, although its scale remained limited. Apart from this, a few other industries such as sugar, cement, and paper developed slowly, especially during the inter-war period and after the Second World War.

    However, India lacked capital goods and heavy industries, particularly those producing machinery and equipment essential for further industrial growth. The public sector’s role was minimal and was confined mostly to railways, power, ports and communications. Most industrial units were small in size and geographically concentrated in a few regions, creating regional imbalances.

    In conclusion, while India did possess some modern industries at the time of independence, the industrial base was narrow, weak and unbalanced. This limited industrial development posed a major challenge for the newly independent nation and strongly influenced India’s post-independence industrial and planning strategy.

  • Class 11th Economics – Indian Economy – Chapter 1 – Question 3

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Q3. What were the main causes of India’s agricultural stagnation during the colonial period?

    India’s agricultural stagnation during the colonial period was the result of several interconnected factors:

    1. Exploitative land revenue systems
      The British introduced systems such as the zamindari settlement, where revenue was collected by intermediaries. Zamindars focused on extracting rent rather than investing in agriculture, leaving cultivators impoverished and insecure.

    2. High land revenue demands
      Revenue had to be paid in cash and on fixed dates, regardless of crop failure or natural calamities. This forced peasants into debt and discouraged long-term investment in land improvement.

    3. Lack of investment and technology
      There was minimal investment in irrigation, flood control, drainage, fertilisers and improved tools. Agriculture continued with primitive methods, resulting in low productivity.

    4. Commercialisation of agriculture
      Farmers were encouraged to grow cash crops instead of food crops to meet the needs of British industries. This did not improve farmers’ incomes and increased vulnerability to famines and food shortages.

    5. Insecurity of tenancy
      Tenants, sharecroppers and small farmers lacked ownership rights and incentives to invest in land, leading to neglect and poor yields.

    6. Frequent famines and natural calamities
      Poor infrastructure, inadequate relief measures and dependence on monsoons made agriculture highly vulnerable to droughts and floods.

    7. Neglect by colonial administration
      Since colonial policies prioritised British economic interests, agricultural development in India was largely ignored.

    In summary, agriculture remained stagnant because it was exploitative, under-invested and commercially distorted, despite being the main livelihood of the majority of India’s population during the colonial period.

    Q4. Name some modern industries which were in operation in our country at the time of independence.

    At the time of independence, only a limited number of modern industries had developed in India. Some of the important ones were:

    • Cotton textile industry (mainly in Maharashtra and Gujarat)

    • Jute industry (largely concentrated in Bengal)

    • Iron and steel industry (notably the Tata Iron and Steel Company established in 1907)

    • Sugar industry

    • Cement industry

    • Paper industry

    However, the overall industrial base was weak and narrow, and capital goods industries were almost absent, which severely restricted India’s industrial growth during the colonial period.

  • Class 11th Economics – Indian Economy – Chapter 1 – Question 2

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    2. Name some notable economists who estimated India’s per capita income during the colonial period. Write a few lines about them.

    • Dadabhai Naoroji
      He was one of the earliest Indian economists to study India’s national income. Through his Drain Theory, he showed how British rule led to a continuous outflow of wealth from India, contributing to poverty and low per capita income.

    • William Digby
      Digby focused on India’s economic stagnation and poverty under colonial rule. His estimates highlighted the extremely low standard of living of Indians during the British period.

    • Findlay Shirras
      An official economist, Shirras made systematic attempts to estimate national and per capita income using available administrative data, though his estimates were limited by poor statistics.

    • V. K. R. V. Rao
      Rao provided the most comprehensive and credible estimates of national and per capita income for the colonial period. His work clearly showed slow growth and near stagnation in per capita income.

    • R. C. Desai
      Desai contributed refined estimates using improved methods and historical data, helping economists better understand the structure and distribution of income in colonial India.

    These economists played a crucial role in revealing the low level of economic development and widespread poverty in colonial India

  • Class 11th Economics – Indian Economy – Chapter 1 – Question 1

    Go Back To Class 11th Economics Page

    Q1. What was the focus of the economic policies pursued by the colonial government in India? What were the impacts of these policies?

    Focus of colonial economic policies

    The economic policies followed by the British colonial government in India were not aimed at developing the Indian economy. Their primary focus was to protect and promote the economic interests of Britain. India was deliberately reshaped into:

    • a supplier of raw materials (like cotton, jute, indigo, silk), and

    • a market for finished industrial goods manufactured in Britain.

    In short, the colonial economy was designed to serve the needs of Britain’s industrial growth rather than India’s own development.

    Impacts of these policies

    1. De-industrialisation of India

      • Traditional handicraft and cottage industries declined sharply due to competition from cheap British manufactured goods.

      • No strong modern industrial base was allowed to develop in their place, leading to large-scale unemployment.

    2. Agricultural stagnation

      • Agriculture remained backward and stagnant despite employing the majority of the population.

      • Exploitative land revenue systems (like the zamindari system), low investment, poor technology, and focus on cash crops worsened farmers’ conditions.

    3. Drain of wealth

      • India consistently generated an export surplus, but this surplus was used to pay for British administrative costs, wars, and other expenses abroad.

      • There was no corresponding inflow of gold or capital into India, resulting in a continuous drain of Indian wealth.

    4. Distorted foreign trade structure

      • India exported primary products and imported finished consumer and capital goods.

      • Britain enjoyed monopoly control over India’s foreign trade, limiting India’s economic autonomy.

    5. Low level of economic development

      • Growth rates of national and per capita income were extremely low.

      • Poverty, unemployment, and inequality became widespread.

    In essence, colonial economic policies led to the underdevelopment of the Indian economy, making it dependent, stagnant, and vulnerable by the time of independence