SYNOPSIS: IASbaba’s TLP – 2018: UPSC Mains General Studies Questions [15th January 2018]- Day 36
1. What were the factors that led to the war between East India Company and Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah? Discuss.
- This is a simple question requiring specific details of the asked topic
- Factors leading to war
The Battle of Plassey (1757) was fought between the EIC and Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah of Bengal in which the latter was defeated by the former. There were many factors which resulted in the war which gave British complete control of Bengal Province. The Bengal province was one of the richest provinces of those times. The ports of Bengal formed an important lifeline of British trade.
Factors that led to the war between East India Company and Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah
- The EIC had secured a royal farman in 1717 which secured them export and import of goods without paying taxes and the right to issues passes or dastaks. The Nawab was not in favour of the farman.
- The EIC’s traders misused the right to issues passes; they charged heavy taxes from the Indian merchants. The Nawab wanted the Company to do trade on his terms but the latter refused to do so.
- The rivalry for possessions in Bengal between French and English led to a race for fortifications. These invited the wrath of nawab, While French obeyed the orders of nawab, English declined to halt the fortifications owing to its political ambitions.
- The Nawab attacked and seized EIC’s factory at Kasimbazar and marched to Calcutta and occupied Fort William. The Britishers were felt oppressed by this move. The death of English men due to suffocation in a black hole tragedy, made the war inevitable.
- The battle was mostly a one sided affair due to treacherous employees of Nawab-Mir jafar, Amirchand etc.
The Battle of Plassey was of immense historical importance. It paved the way for British mastery of Bengal. It boosted the prestige of British and raised them to a status of major contenders for the Indian empire.
Best Answer: Jyoti Singh
2. The year of 1858 can be treated as a watershed in India’s constitutional, political and administrative history. Analyse.
- Introduction- A line or two about what led to introduction of Act of good governance.
- Body: Split the body into three parts. One each for Constitutional, Political and Administrative and mention points according.
- Conclusion: 2-3 lines are must.
First war of Independence in 1857 gave a wakeup call to Britishers that they can no more take Indians for granted and to increase their control and provide able governance they introduced An Act for the Better Government of India 1858 which marked new beginning in constitutional History of India.
- India under British Crown.
- Office of Secretary of State for India
- Council of India of Secretary of State
- Office of Court of Directors and Board of control abolished.
- Doctrine of Lapse was withdrawn.
- Liberty given to Indian rulers subject to British suzerainty.
- Withdrawal from social reforms.
- Divide and rule policy.
- Entry of Indian into civil services.
- Racial segregation and martial class into army.
- Governor General and Viceroy position as direct representative of crown.
- Centralization and supervision from England by British cabinet.
- Dual government was abolished.
- Appeasement of Princes and zamindars.
Note: Around 8 to 10 points are required in Answer. Each of the three parts needs equal concentration so include accordingly. Also a line or two explanations is needed for each point.
The act was formal than anything serious at ground level. The British crown and Parliament already had substantial interests and control over East India Company by introduction various charter acts. But this act made everything formal and there was new beginning for constitutional governance in British India.
Connecting the dots:
- First war of Indian Independence.
- Post war changes and acts.
- Constitutional History of India.
Best answer: Doreamon.
Q3. The growth of industries in British India was more a case of individual brilliance and contemporary world politics than of British policies or support. Do you agree? Substantiate.
- Divide the answer in two sun-parts
- Emphasize on the two keywords – individual brilliance and world politics
- Note – substantiate requires mandatory examples
British policies in India were directed towards suppression and subordination of India as a colony. The growth of British industry came the cost of Indian manufacturing.
Industrial development in India started with the tenure of Lord Dalhousie. However, it was largely a by-product of world politics and cases of individual brilliance.
Contemporary World Politics
- Start of industrial revolution in Britain required greater amount of raw materials. Hence, railway line was laid in India to speed up the movement of coal and iron from the interior parts of India to the port. Cotton and jute mills too were set up mainly for export purposes.
- Rise of new nation like Italy and Germany – posed a threat to British hegemony. For e.g. from 1860 to WW I, Britain and Germany were involved in a naval race. Domestic raw materials were deemed inadequate to fulfil the needs, hence industrialization in colonies like India was initiated
- Race to acquire new colonies in Africa and frequent wars required strong economies. Industrialization in colonies to fund war expenses was one of doing it.
- American Civil War – during the 1860s disrupted the cotton supply from the American continent. In that span more than 70 mills came up in India to fill up the supply void.
With little support from the British government, wealthy individuals, especially from the affluent Parsee community laid the first few stones of industrialization in India. Examples in this regard:
- N Cowasji – setup the Bombay Spinning and Weaving Company in 1854
- George Acland – setup a jute spinning firm in Rishra, near Sermapore, Bengal in 1850.
- JRD Tata – setup Tata Iron and Steel Company in 1907 in Jamshedpur
Britain industrialized due to timely industrial revolution and colonization, America got industrialized due to abundance of natural resources, isolation from world politics and demand of American goods in WW I. However, the case of Indian industrialization was an outcome of individual acts of brilliance and visionary action, combined with the needs of world politics of the time.
Best Answer: Barbarika
Q.4) The Non-Cooperation movement and the Khilafat agitation represented a new stage in the national movement. Elaborate.
Khilafat agitation and Non-Cooperation Movement:
It was a country wide movement. This movement was started by Ali brothers, Mohammed Ali and Shukot Ali, in order to show their agitation to the government as the Muslims/Turkey were ill-treated. The Muslim’s religious leader Khalif lives there.
So the Indian Muslims wanted to show their support through their agitation. Therefore, this movement in Indian History is called Khilafat Movement. By clubbing Khilafat movement with the Non-co-operation movement there was a growth of Hindu-Muslim unity. This made the Indians fearless.
The politically-conscious Muslims were critical of the treatment meted out to the Ottoman or Turkish Empire by Britain and its allies who had partitioned it and taken away Thrace from Turkey proper. The Congress supported Gandhi’s plan for non-cooperation with the Government till the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs were removed and Swaraj established.
Events that changed the face of national movement during these movements:
- The Congress leaders, including Lokamanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, viewed the Khilafat agitation as a golden opportunity for cementing Hindu-Muslim unity and bringing the Muslim masses into the national movement.
- The Congress leaders realized that different sections of the people: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, capitalists and workers, peasants and artisans, women and youth, and tribes and
- Peoples of different regions, would come into the national movement through the experience of fighting for their own different demands and seeing that the alien regime stood in opposition to them.
- The years 1921 and 1922 witnessed an unprecedented movement of the Indian people. Thousands of students left government schools and colleges and joined national schools and colleges.
- Hundreds of lawyers, including Chittaranjan Das (popularly known as Deshbandhu), Motilal Nehru, and Rajendra Prasad, gave up their legal practice. The Tilak Swarajya Fund was started to finance the non-cooperation movement and within six months, over crore of rupees were subscribed.
- Women showed great enthusiasm and freely offered their jewelry.
- Huge bonfires of foreign cloth were organized all over the land.
- Khadi soon became a symbol of freedom.
- In July 1921, the All-India Khilafat Committee passed a resolution declaring that no Muslim should serve in the British Indian army.
However, these movements are not devoid of negative effects, there are some events which took place like, the communal elements took advantage of the situation to propagate their views and after 1923, and the country was repeatedly plunged into communal riots, the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha, which was founded in December 1917, once again became active. The result was that the growing feeling that all people were Indians first received a set-back.
Best Answer: Maximus
5. Had Gandhiji not withdrawn the Civil Disobedience Movement, India would have achieved freedom much earlier. Do you agree? Critically comment.
- Introduction- A brief on what CDM was about, its phases.
- Analysing if India would have achieved independence had the movement would not have been withdrawn- a critical analysis is required.
Civil Disobedience movement (1930-1934) had 2 phases. One before Gandhi-Irwin Pact and second after 2nd RTC. Because of signing of Gandhi Irwin pact, Gandhi agreed to discontinue civil disobedient movement. After that Gandhi went on to attend 2nd RTC but returned disappointed.
Unfortunately the conference ended on a sad note as many of the demands put forward by the Indians were not accepted. Gandhi returned to India to find most of the leaders in jail. This led him to start the second phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1932. On the announcement of the communal award by Ramsay MacDonald(on 16th august,1932) the strength and pace of the civil disobedience movement began to decline. This led to its gradual dismissal until finally it died out and was officially withdrawn in April,1934.
India would have achieved freedom much earlier:
It is argued by many that India would have achieved independence then only, as people’s might to fight against foreign power was at its peak. But a fair understanding of reasons behind the withdrawal shows its naïve to think that non-withdrawal would have led to freedom.
Withdrawal was necessary:
- Mass movement can’t last forever as people have limited capacity to sacrifice and limited strength to struggle.
- It was part of Struggle-Truce-Struggle strategy.
- Violent clashes among the police and people happened at several places. Example- when Abdul Ghaffar Khan was arrested in April 1930, angry crowds demonstrated and protested in the streets of Peshawar. Many were killed during the police firing. The government thus responded with the policy of brutal repression. Under such circumstances, Gandhi once again adopted the strategy of struggle-truce-struggle.
- International scenario was also not in favor of India. Britain was much powerful then unlike after World War II.
The point that CDM movement would not have been withdrawn we would have achieved independence soon is not a rational one. The withdrawal was strategic and was planned step based on the situation of that time.