IGNOU BHIC-110 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU BHIC-110 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU BHIC-110 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. What were the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution in the British economic policies in India ?

Ans. The Industrial Revolution in Britain, which took place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, fundamentally transformed British economic policies towards India. These changes reshaped India into a subordinate adjunct of the British industrial economy. The key changes can be understood through the following points: 1. Shift in Trade Policy: Before the Industrial Revolution, the East India Company’s primary interest was trading in Indian goods, especially textiles, spices, and handicrafts, which were sold in Europe. However, after the Industrial Revolution, Britain itself became a major manufacturing hub. Consequently, British policy shifted to making India a market for British manufactured goods and a source of raw materials for its industries. The Charter Act of 1813 ended the Company’s trade monopoly, except for tea and trade with China, opening the Indian market to private British traders. The Charter Act of 1833 abolished the Company’s trade monopoly entirely. 2. De-industrialization of India: The British government adopted a policy of one-way free trade. Machine-made textiles and other goods from Britain were allowed almost duty-free entry into India. In contrast, heavy import duties were levied on Indian textiles in Britain. Due to this unequal competition, India’s traditional textile and handicraft industries were ruined. Millions of weavers, artisans, and craftsmen became unemployed, forcing them to depend on agriculture. 3. Commercialization of Agriculture: British industries needed raw materials. Therefore, the British forced or induced Indian peasants to grow cash crops like cotton, indigo, opium, and jute instead of traditional food crops. While this linked agriculture to the market, it also made peasants vulnerable to exploitation by middlemen and the price fluctuations of the global market. Furthermore, the decline in the production of food crops increased the severity of famines. 4. Drain of Wealth: India became the source for paying for British administration, military expenditures, and the salaries and pensions of British officials. These were known as ‘Home Charges’. Profits from investments made by British capitalists in railways, plantations, and mines were also repatriated to Britain. Nationalist leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji described this process as the ‘Drain of Wealth’ , which continuously impoverished India. 5. Development of Infrastructure: The British developed railways, posts, and telegraphs in India to serve their own economic and administrative interests. The primary purpose of the railways was to transport British goods to the interiors from the ports and to bring raw materials from the hinterland to the ports for export. In conclusion, the Industrial Revolution changed British economic policy towards India from being ‘mercantilist’ to ‘colonial’. India’s economy was restructured to serve the needs of the British economy, leading to the de-industrialization of India and the destruction of its traditional self-sufficient economy.

Q2. Give an assessment of the administrative and judicial system introduced by the British in India.

Ans. After establishing their rule in India, the British introduced a new administrative and judicial system to serve their colonial interests and strengthen their hold on power. An assessment of this system can be made based on its objectives, structure, and impact. Administrative System: The main objective of the British administrative system was to extract maximum revenue from India and maintain law and order to ensure that trade and exploitation could proceed uninterrupted.

• Centralized Structure: The administrative structure was highly centralized. Warren Hastings created the post of the Collector, who was responsible for both revenue collection and judicial functions. Later, Lord Cornwallis separated revenue and judicial administration, but the Collector remained the linchpin of British rule in the district.
• Civil Services: Cornwallis introduced the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Civil Services. The higher posts, termed ‘Covenanted’, were reserved exclusively for the British. Indians were appointed only to subordinate posts. This system created an efficient but racially discriminatory bureaucracy that was detached from Indian society.
• Police System: Cornwallis established a modern police force in 1791. Districts were divided into ‘Thanas’, headed by a ‘Daroga’. While this system was successful in maintaining law and order, it often proved to be corrupt and oppressive, especially in rural areas.

Judicial System:

The British judicial system aimed to establish the concept of the ‘Rule of Law’, meaning that the administration would be carried out in accordance with laws and that all citizens (in principle) would be equal before the law.

• Establishment of Courts: Cornwallis set up a hierarchical structure of courts for civil (Diwani) and criminal (Faujdari) cases. At the lowest level were the Munsiff’s and Sadar Amin’s courts, and at the apex were the Sadar Diwani Adalat (for civil appeals) and Sadar Nizamat Adalat (for criminal appeals) in Calcutta.
• Codification of Law: The British attempted to codify laws to bring uniformity across the territory. The Law Commission, headed by Lord Macaulay , drafted the Indian Penal Code . However, in this process, complex Indian traditional laws and customs were often ignored.
• Limitations of ‘Rule of Law’: In practice, the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ was not fully implemented. There were separate courts and laws for Europeans, reflecting racial discrimination. The judicial system was very expensive, complex, and protracted, making it inaccessible to the common Indian. It gave rise to a new class of lawyers and intermediaries and promoted litigation.

Assessment:

In conclusion, the British administrative and judicial system laid the foundation for a modern bureaucracy and legal framework in India. It defined private property rights and established law and order to a certain extent. However, its fundamental purpose was to strengthen British colonial rule, not the welfare of Indians. The system was alien to Indian society, expensive, and inherently racist. It destroyed India’s traditional administrative and judicial institutions and established a system that became an effective tool for colonial exploitation.

Q3. Discuss the colonial policy on education.

Ans. The British colonial policy on education in India evolved over time, and its primary objectives were to serve British administrative and economic interests. The development of this policy can be divided into three main phases: 1. Early Phase: The Orientalist Approach (Until 1813) Initially, the East India Company showed little interest in promoting education in India. Some British officials, known as ‘Orientalists’ , were in favour of understanding and preserving Indian languages, culture, and laws. Warren Hastings founded the Calcutta Madrasa in 1781, and Jonathan Duncan established the Sanskrit College at Banaras in 1791. Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. These Orientalists believed that Indians could be governed better by educating them in their own languages and traditions. 2. The Anglicist Approach and Macaulay’s Minute (1813-1854) The Charter Act of 1813, for the first time, allocated a sum of one lakh rupees per annum for Indian education. This was followed by an intense debate between the Orientalists and the ‘Anglicists’ regarding the medium of instruction. The Anglicists, led by Thomas Babington Macaulay , argued that Indian and Arabic knowledge was inferior to Western knowledge and that Indians should be educated in Western science and literature through the medium of English. In 1835, Lord William Bentinck accepted Macaulay’s proposals, known as Macaulay’s Minute . The main aim of this policy was to create a class of persons who would be “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” This educated class was expected to serve in lower-level posts in the colonial administration and create a consumer market for British goods. This policy was also associated with the ‘Downward Filtration Theory’ , which presumed that education would filter down from the upper classes to the masses. Due to this theory, mass education was completely neglected. 3. Establishment of a Comprehensive System: Wood’s Despatch (1854) Sir Charles Wood’s Despatch of 1854 , often called the ‘Magna Carta of English Education in India’, presented a comprehensive plan for education in India. Its main recommendations were:

• The government should assume responsibility for mass education, rejecting the downward filtration theory.
• Vernacular languages should be encouraged for primary education, while English should be the preferred medium for higher education.
• Universities on the model of London University should be established in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.
• A Department of Education should be established in every province.
• Teacher training institutions should be set up, and female education should also be encouraged.

Assessment:

The colonial education policy laid the foundation for the modern education system in India. It introduced Indians to Western ideas like democracy, liberty, and nationalism, which eventually played a crucial role in the rise of Indian nationalism. However, it also had negative effects. It neglected traditional Indian knowledge systems, ignored mass education, and created a wide gulf between the educated and the uneducated Indians. Its primary objective was not the welfare of Indians but the creation of a loyal and cheap administrative class and providing an ideological justification for colonial rule.

Q4. Write short notes on any two of the following in about 200 words each : (a) East India Company’s Monopoly over Trade (b) Annexation of Awadh (c) The Utilitarians (d) French influence on Carnatic politics

Ans. (a) East India Company’s Monopoly over Trade The East India Company was granted a monopoly on trade with the East by a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I in 1600. This monopoly meant that no other person or company from Britain could trade with countries east of the Cape of Good Hope. This monopoly was the main source of the Company’s power and wealth. The Company primarily imported goods like cotton textiles, silk, spices, saltpetre, and indigo from India and sold them at huge profits in Europe. By the end of the 18th century, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, opposition to this monopoly grew. New industrialists and merchants wanted direct access to the vast Indian market and saw the Company’s privilege as an obstacle. The ideas of free trade, advocated by Adam Smith, also provided ideological support to this opposition. As a result of these pressures, the British Parliament, through the Charter Act of 1813 , abolished the Company’s monopoly on Indian trade, although its monopoly on trade with China and the tea trade remained. Finally, the Charter Act of 1833 completely ended all of the Company’s commercial monopolies, transforming it into a purely administrative body. (b) Annexation of Awadh The annexation of Awadh in 1856 by Governor-General Lord Dalhousie stands as a prime example of British expansionism. Awadh had been bound by the subsidiary alliance system with the British since 1801. Under this treaty, the Nawab had disbanded his army and agreed to pay for the maintenance of British troops in his territory. In return, the British promised to protect him from external and internal threats. However, this system made the Nawab powerless and indifferent to administration. The British Resident constantly interfered in the state’s affairs. For decades, the British exploited Awadh’s resources. Finally, Dalhousie used the pretext of ‘misgovernance’ under Nawab Wajid Ali Shah to justify the annexation. In February 1856, Awadh was annexed into British India, and the Nawab was exiled to Calcutta. This annexation deeply offended the people of Awadh, particularly the soldiers and taluqdars (landholders), whose social and economic status changed overnight. The annexation of Awadh is considered one of the major political causes of the Revolt of 1857. (c) The Utilitarians Utilitarianism was an influential philosophical and reformist movement in 19th-century Britain, with Jeremy Bentham and James Mill as its leading thinkers. The core principle of Utilitarianism was ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. They believed that all laws, institutions, and actions should be judged based on their ‘utility’—that is, how much they increase pleasure and reduce pain. In the context of India, Utilitarian thinkers considered Indian society and culture to be ‘irrational’, ‘backward’, and ‘barbaric’. James Mill, in his book “The History of British India,” offered a scathing critique of Indian society. He believed that to ‘civilize’ India, a progressive and rational government was needed, and British rule could play this role. The Utilitarians advocated for rapid transformation in India. They supported the introduction of rational laws, a modern judicial system, and Western education. Governor-Generals like Lord William Bentinck were heavily influenced by Utilitarian ideas, and his reforms, such as the abolition of Sati and the suppression of Thuggee, were inspired by this ideology. In essence, Utilitarianism provided a moral justification for British imperialism as a ‘civilizing mission’. (d) French influence on Carnatic politics In the mid-18th century, French influence over the politics of the Carnatic (the Coromandel coast and its hinterland) was at its peak, largely thanks to the French Governor-General, Joseph-François Dupleix . Dupleix developed an ambitious strategy that changed the nature of European intervention in India. Taking advantage of the political instability following the decline of the Mughal Empire, Dupleix began to interfere in the internal affairs of Indian states, particularly in succession disputes. This was clearly seen during the Second Carnatic War (1749-54), when the French supported Chanda Sahib for the Nawabi of Carnatic and Muzaffar Jang for the Nizamship of Hyderabad. In return, these Indian rulers provided the French with money, territory, and trade concessions. Dupleix also pioneered the effective use of an army of Indian soldiers (sepoys) trained in European military techniques. Although the French were ultimately defeated by the British, their strategy set a model for the British. Robert Clive successfully adopted Dupleix’s techniques and used them to lay the foundation of the British Empire. Thus, French intervention in Carnatic politics exposed the weaknesses of Indian princes and showed European powers how they could establish their dominance by using Indian rulers as ‘puppets’.

Q5. Critically examine the impact of the colonial rule on Indian economy.

Ans. The impact of colonial rule on the Indian economy was profound, multifaceted, and largely detrimental. While British rule led to the establishment of some modern infrastructure, its overall effect was the systematic exploitation and underdevelopment of the Indian economy to serve the interests of the British metropolis. This can be critically examined through several key areas. 1. De-industrialization: Before British rule, India was a major producer and exporter of textiles and other handicrafts. However, the colonial policy of one-way free trade flooded the Indian market with cheap, machine-made goods from Britain. Simultaneously, high tariffs were imposed on Indian goods entering Britain. This led to the ruin of Indian artisans and weavers, a process termed de-industrialization . Millions lost their livelihoods and were forced into agriculture, increasing the pressure on land. 2. Impoverishment of the Peasantry and Commercialization of Agriculture: The British introduced new land revenue systems like the Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari. The primary aim of these systems was to maximize revenue for the state. The revenue demand was excessively high, fixed, and had to be paid in cash, regardless of crop failure. This forced peasants into the clutches of moneylenders and led to widespread land alienation. Furthermore, the British promoted the commercialization of agriculture , encouraging the cultivation of cash crops like indigo, cotton, opium, and tea for export. This shift from subsistence to cash crop farming made peasants vulnerable to global price fluctuations and often reduced the cultivation of food grains, contributing to food insecurity and the severity of famines. 3. Drain of Wealth: A significant portion of India’s national wealth was unilaterally transferred to Britain. Early Indian nationalists like Dadabhai Naoroji articulated this as the ‘Drain of Wealth’ theory. This drain occurred through various channels:

• Home Charges: The salary and pensions of British officials, military expenditure, and the costs of the India Office in London were all charged to Indian revenues.
• Profits of British Companies: Profits from British-owned enterprises in India (plantations, railways, banking) were sent back to Britain.
• Trade Surplus: India’s export surplus with other countries was not used for its own development but was appropriated by Britain to settle its own trade deficits.

This systematic drain of capital starved India of the resources needed for its own industrialization and development.

4. Development of Modern Infrastructure:

The British did introduce modern infrastructure like railways, telegraphs, and a postal system. However, the motivation was colonial. Railways were built to facilitate the transport of troops for control, to move raw materials to ports, and to distribute British manufactured goods into the interior. This development did not lead to widespread industrialization in India but rather integrated it more deeply into the colonial economic structure as a dependent.

In conclusion, colonial rule transformed the Indian economy into a classic colonial economy—a supplier of raw materials, a market for manufactured goods, and a field for capital investment for the colonizing power. It destroyed India’s traditional industries, created poverty in the countryside, and drained its wealth, leaving a legacy of structural underdevelopment at the time of independence.

Q6. Explain the growth of a new consciousness among the disprivileged groups.

Ans. During the colonial period, especially in the 19th century, a new form of consciousness began to emerge among various disprivileged groups in India, including peasants, tribal communities, and artisans. This consciousness was a direct response to the disruptive and exploitative nature of colonial policies and the new socio-economic order they created. It was distinct from the elite-led nationalist consciousness and was rooted in the immediate grievances and lived experiences of the subaltern classes. Factors Leading to New Consciousness:

• Disruption of Traditional Livelihoods: Colonial land revenue policies (Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, Mahalwari) disrupted traditional land relations, imposed heavy cash rents, and led to the rise of a new class of landlords and moneylenders. Similarly, forest laws restricted tribal access to forests, their traditional source of livelihood. The influx of British manufactured goods destroyed the livelihoods of Indian artisans.
• The Colonial-Landlord-Moneylender Nexus: The disprivileged groups found themselves oppressed by a new trinity of exploiters. The colonial state demanded high revenues, the landlord (Zamindar) acted as the state’s agent, and the moneylender (Mahajan) trapped them in a cycle of debt. This created a shared sense of being exploited by a common set of enemies.
• New Legal and Administrative System: The British introduced a new legal system that was complex, expensive, and alien to the masses. It often favoured the propertied classes and moneylenders, further alienating the poor and making them feel powerless and unjustly treated.

Manifestations of the New Consciousness:

This growing consciousness did not initially manifest as a unified national movement. Instead, it took the form of numerous localized protests, uprisings, and rebellions.

• Tribal Revolts: Communities like the Kols (1831-32) , Santhals (1855-56) , and Mundas rose up against the encroachment on their lands and the imposition of outside authorities (known as dikus ). The Santhal Hul (Rebellion) , for example, was a powerful uprising against the oppression by moneylenders and the colonial state, demonstrating a clear consciousness of their distinct identity and their right to self-rule in their own territory.
• Peasant Movements: Peasants rose up against landlords, indigo planters, and moneylenders. The Indigo Revolt (1859-60) in Bengal saw peasants refusing to grow indigo for European planters, showing remarkable organization and a clear understanding of their exploitation. These movements were often aimed at restoring a more just or traditional order.
• Religious and Social Reform Movements: Among lower castes and disprivileged groups, this new consciousness also took the form of socio-religious reform movements. Leaders like Jyotiba Phule in Maharashtra challenged the Brahminical social order and advocated for the education and empowerment of the lower castes (Shudras and Ati-Shudras), articulating a powerful critique of caste-based oppression.

In conclusion, the ‘new consciousness’ among disprivileged groups was a complex phenomenon. It was a defensive reaction to the immense pressures of colonialism, characterized by a growing awareness of their shared suffering and a willingness to resist their oppressors. While often localized and ‘backward-looking’ (aiming to restore a past order), these movements represented the first stirrings of mass anti-colonial sentiment and laid the groundwork for their later integration into the broader nationalist struggle.

Q7. What was the nature of popular movements before 1857 ?

Ans. The century preceding the great Revolt of 1857 was not a period of passive acquiescence to British rule. It was marked by a series of popular movements, including peasant uprisings, tribal revolts, and religious-political movements. While these movements were ultimately suppressed by the superior military might of the British, they reveal a consistent tradition of resistance. The nature of these pre-1857 popular movements can be characterized by several key features. 1. Localized and Disunited: The most significant feature of these movements was their localized nature. They were confined to specific regions and involved particular social groups (e.g., Santhals in the Damin-i-koh, Mappilas in Malabar). There was little to no coordination or communication between different movements. Their grievances were specific to their local conditions, and they lacked a broad, all-India vision or a concept of a unified ‘Indian nation’. 2. Restorative and ‘Backward-Looking’: Many of these movements were ‘restorative’ in nature. They were not aimed at creating a new social or political order but sought to restore a pre-colonial past that was perceived as more just. The leaders often aimed to overthrow the new colonial regime and re-establish the authority of traditional rulers, chiefs, or a moral economy that had been disrupted. For instance, many peasant revolts were aimed at resisting high revenue demands and restoring traditional rent levels. 3. Led by Traditional Elites and Religious Figures: The leadership of these popular movements was often provided by traditional figures who had lost their power and prestige under colonial rule. These included displaced zamindars, local chieftains, tribal heads, and religious figures (priests, fakirs, sanyasis). For example, the Sanyasi-Fakir Rebellion in Bengal was led by religious monks and displaced zamindars. The Wahabi Movement , a religious revivalist movement, also took on a political character, calling for a jihad against the British. These leaders used traditional and religious idioms to mobilize the masses. 4. Targeted Immediate Oppressors: The violence of these movements was often directed against the immediate symbols of oppression rather than the distant British state itself. The primary targets were the new landlords (zamindars), moneylenders (mahajans), and local colonial officials (police darogas, court officials) who were seen as the direct agents of exploitation. This is evident in the Santhal Rebellion (1855-56) , where the initial attacks were on the ‘dikus’ (outsiders), including Bengali and Bihari moneylenders and traders. 5. Use of Violence and Traditional Methods: These movements were often spontaneous and violent. The participants used traditional weapons like bows, arrows, swords, and spears. They lacked the organization, discipline, and modern weaponry of the British forces, which was a major reason for their eventual failure. In conclusion, the popular movements before 1857 were not ‘nationalist’ in the modern sense. They were fragmented, localized, and often sought to restore a pre-colonial order. However, they represented a powerful and widespread tradition of anti-colonial resistance. They demonstrated a deep-seated hatred for foreign rule and laid the foundation for the more organized nationalist struggles that followed the Revolt of 1857.

Q8. Write short notes on any two of the following in about 200 words each : (a) The Mahalwari Settlement (b) Impact of Colonial Trade Policy on Agriculture (c) Famines and the Colonial Policies (d) Migrations to the Plantation Economy

Ans. (a) The Mahalwari Settlement The Mahalwari Settlement was a land revenue system introduced by the British in the North-Western Provinces, parts of Central India, and Punjab in the early 19th century. The system was devised by Holt Mackenzie in 1822 and later refined by Robert Merttins Bird . Under this system, the unit of revenue assessment was the village or a group of villages, known as a ‘mahal’. The land revenue was not fixed permanently but was revised periodically (usually every 20-30 years). The state’s share of the revenue was fixed at a very high rate, often as much as two-thirds of the net produce initially, though it was later reduced. The responsibility for paying the revenue was not on the individual peasant (like in Ryotwari) or the Zamindar (like in Permanent Settlement), but on the village community as a whole. The village headman (lambardar) collected the revenue from the peasants and paid it to the government. While the system aimed to preserve the traditional village community structure, the high revenue demand and its rigid collection method impoverished the peasantry. It led to the dispossession of many peasants from their land and increased rural indebtedness. The state’s recognition of communal ownership was largely a fiction, as in practice, it dealt with powerful village headmen, strengthening their position at the expense of ordinary cultivators. (b) Impact of Colonial Trade Policy on Agriculture The colonial trade policy had a transformative and largely negative impact on Indian agriculture. The policy was designed to serve the needs of Britain’s industrial economy, turning India into a supplier of raw materials and a market for British goods. This had several key effects on agriculture. Firstly, it led to the commercialization of agriculture . Peasants were forced or induced to cultivate cash crops like cotton, indigo, jute, and opium, which were needed by British industries or for export. This was often done at the expense of food crops, leading to a decline in food grain production and increasing the risk of food shortages and famines. Secondly, this policy integrated Indian agriculture into the volatile global market. Indian peasants were now subject to international price fluctuations, over which they had no control. A slump in global demand for a crop like cotton could ruin countless farmers. Thirdly, the trade policy did not lead to agricultural modernization. The profits from the export of agricultural goods were not reinvested in improving agricultural productivity; instead, they were siphoned off by colonial traders, intermediaries, and the state, leading to the stagnation of the agricultural sector and the impoverishment of the peasantry. (c) Famines and the Colonial Policies While famines in India were not a new phenomenon, their frequency and intensity increased dramatically under British rule. Colonial policies were a major contributing factor that turned droughts into catastrophic famines. The primary cause was the exorbitant land revenue demand, which had to be paid in cash, forcing peasants to sell their grain reserves even in years of scarcity. The colonial emphasis on cash crops over food crops reduced the overall food availability. The development of railways, while seen as a modernizing influence, paradoxically worsened famines by facilitating the transport of grain from drought-stricken areas to ports for export. British adherence to the doctrine of laissez-faire (non-interference) meant that the government was often slow and reluctant to organize large-scale relief efforts, believing that market forces would solve the problem. The government’s Famine Codes, developed after the devastating Orissa Famine (1866) and the Great Famine (1876-78) , were often inadequate and implemented half-heartedly. Thus, famines under colonial rule were not just natural disasters; they were ‘man-made’ calamities exacerbated by the economic and administrative policies of the British Raj. (d) Migrations to the Plantation Economy The 19th century saw large-scale migrations of Indian laborers to work in the plantation economies of other British colonies. This was driven by the huge demand for cheap labor in places like Mauritius, the Caribbean (Trinidad, Guyana), Fiji, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Malaya, as well as within India in the tea plantations of Assam. This demand surged after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833. This migration took place under the indentured labour system , also known as the ‘girmitiya’ system (from the word ‘agreement’). Under this system, laborers were recruited, often through deception and false promises, from over-populated and impoverished regions like Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh. They were made to sign a contract (indenture) to work for a fixed period (usually five years) in a foreign land in return for a small wage and passage. The conditions on the plantations were extremely harsh, with long working hours, low wages, and brutal punishments. The system was often described as a ‘new system of slavery’. Despite the exploitation, millions of Indians migrated, forming significant diasporic communities that have shaped the demographic and cultural landscape of these countries to this day.