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

Showing the 12 most recent of 14 on this concept.

1. CBSE 2026Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement 1 : During the British rule in India, the export surplus was utilised to import of invisible items from Britain. Statement 2 : Indians paid for the expenses incurred by an office set up by the colonial government in Britain. In the light of above statements, choose the correct option from the following : (A) Statement 1 is true and statement 2 is false. (B) Statement 1 is false and statement 2 is true. (C) Both statements 1 and 2 are true. (D) Both statements 1 and 2 are false.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   India's large colonial-era export surplus never flowed back as gold or silver; it was used to pay for the expenses of a colonial office set up in Britain, war expenses, and the import of invisible items — the classic 'drain of wealth'. Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 correctly describe uses of that surplus, so both are true.

   This is a classic CBSE / NCERT previous-year topic on India's economy on the eve of independence — specifically the drain of wealth during British colonial rule. The key is to recall exactly what India's export surplus was actually used for.

   The Export Surplus and the Drain of Wealth

   Under British rule, India consistently ran a large merchandise export surplus: it exported far more (raw materials such as cotton, jute and indigo, and food grains) than it imported. Ordinarily such a surplus would bring an inflow of gold and silver into the country. But in India's case no such inflow occurred. The surplus was appropriated by the colonial government and used to make payments for:

   • the expenses of an office set up by the colonial government in Britain (the Secretary of State's / India Office in London) — part of the 'Home Charges';
   • expenses on wars fought by the British government; and
   • the import of invisible items (services and similar intangible items supplied by Britain).

   Each of these was a one-way outflow of India's earnings with no corresponding benefit to Indians — together they constitute the drain of Indian wealth.

   Evaluating Statement 1

   Statement 1: "the export surplus was utilised to import of invisible items from Britain." The import of invisible items is expressly one of the three recognised uses of the export surplus in the standard NCERT account of colonial trade. Hence Statement 1 is true.

   Evaluating Statement 2

   Statement 2: "Indians paid for the expenses incurred by an office set up by the colonial government in Britain." This describes the Home Charges — Indian revenues funding the colonial administrative office maintained in London. It is also one of the documented uses of the surplus, so Statement 2 is true.

   Note

   Both statements describe the SAME phenomenon — the drain of wealth — from two angles, i.e. two of the things the export surplus was actually spent on. They do not contradict each other, and both are drawn directly from the chapter on India's economy on the eve of independence.

   Since both statements correctly state a genuine use of the colonial export surplus, both are true.

   ✓Final answer

   Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. The correct option is (C) Both statements 1 and 2 are true.

2. CBSE 2026Set 58/3/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement I : Inland waterways proved to be uneconomical as in the case of Coast Canal on the Orissa coast. Statement II : British government followed an effective and efficient administrative set-up leaving a legacy of effective work culture. In the light of the given statements, choose the correct option from the following : (A) Statement I is true and Statement II is false. (B) Statement I is false and Statement II is true. (C) Both Statements I and II are true. (D) Both Statements I and II are false.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Statement I is true (the Coast Canal was uneconomical), but Statement II is false (British administration was extractive, not efficient or welfare-oriented). Hence, option (A) is correct.

   Let’s examine each statement carefully, keeping in mind the historical context of British rule in India — especially its economic and administrative impact.

   Statement I refers to the Coast Canal on the Orissa coast, an inland waterway project. During British rule, several canal projects were undertaken, but many proved financially unviable. The Coast Canal was one such example — it was poorly planned, had low traffic, and could not recover its maintenance costs. Inland waterways in general faced competition from railways (which the British actively promoted) and suffered from seasonal fluctuations. So, Statement I is factually correct.

   Statement II claims that the British government had an “effective and efficient administrative set-up” that left a “legacy of effective work culture.” This is misleading. While the British did create a structured bureaucracy, its primary goal was colonial exploitation — not Indian welfare. The administrative system was designed to extract revenue, maintain law and order for British interests, and suppress dissent. It was not efficient in serving the Indian people; rather, it was costly, rigid, and alien. The so-called “work culture” was hierarchical and often corrupt, not a positive legacy. Hence, Statement II is false.

   Watch out

   A common mistake is to confuse “effective for the coloniser” with “effective for the nation.” British administration was effective at extraction, not at development.

   ✓Final answer

   Statement I is true and Statement II is false. Therefore, the correct option is (A).

3. CBSE 2026Set MARCH1 markMCQ
   Q.Railway transport introduced in India in the Year

   (a)

   (a) 1835

   (b)

   (b) 1776

   (c)

   (c) 1850

   (d)

   (d) 1853

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The correct option is (d) 1853.

   This question comes from "Indian Economy on the Eve of Independence" in the Karnataka 1st PUC syllabus. Among the infrastructure the British developed, the railways were the most significant. The first railway line in India was opened in 1853, running from Bombay (Mumbai) to Thane.

   While railways did help break geographical barriers and promote commercialisation, the British built them mainly to serve their own colonial and commercial interests — moving raw materials to ports for export and finished British goods into the interior — rather than to benefit the Indian people directly.

   ✓Final answer

   (d) 1853 — railway transport was introduced in India in the year 1853.

4. CBSE 2026Set MARCH1 mark
   Q.Name the important 'Revenue Settlement System' during British rule.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The three main revenue settlement systems under British rule were the Zamindari (Permanent), Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems.

   Under "Indian Economy on the Eve of Independence," the Karnataka 1st PUC course explains how the British designed land revenue systems mainly to maximise revenue collection, which added to the misery of the farmers. The important systems were:

   • Permanent Settlement (Zamindari System) — introduced by Lord Cornwallis in 1793; zamindars were made owners of land and were responsible for collecting and paying a fixed revenue to the British.

   • Ryotwari System — revenue was settled directly with the individual cultivator (ryot), who was recognised as the owner of the land.

   • Mahalwari System — revenue was assessed on a whole village or estate (mahal), and the village community was jointly responsible for paying it.

   ✓Final answer

   The important revenue settlement systems were the Permanent Settlement (Zamindari), Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems.

5. CBSE 2025Set 58/4/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement 1 : The British policies were accountable for commercialisation of Indian agriculture. Statement 2 : In the larger interest of Indians, the British rulers focused on the infrastructural growth of India. In the light of the given statements, choose the correct option from the following : (A) Statement 1 is true and Statement 2 is false. (B) Statement 1 is false and Statement 2 is true. (C) Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. (D) Both Statements 1 and 2 are false.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   British policies actively promoted the commercialisation of Indian agriculture for their own economic gain, while their infrastructural developments, though seemingly beneficial, were primarily driven by colonial administrative and economic interests, not the welfare of Indians.

   During the British colonial period, India's economy underwent significant structural changes, largely dictated by the interests of the British Empire. Understanding these changes requires examining the motivations behind British policies, particularly in agriculture and infrastructure.

   Statement 1 asserts that British policies were accountable for the commercialisation of Indian agriculture. This is a well-documented aspect of colonial economic history. Before British rule, Indian agriculture was largely subsistence-oriented, meaning farmers grew crops primarily for their own consumption and local needs. The British, however, introduced and intensified policies that fundamentally altered this pattern. They needed raw materials for their burgeoning industries in Britain (like cotton for textile mills) and sought to create markets for British manufactured goods. To achieve this, they encouraged, and often coerced, Indian farmers to shift from food grains to cash crops such such as cotton, jute, indigo, opium, and groundnuts. The new land revenue systems, which demanded payments in cash rather than kind, further compelled farmers to sell their produce in the market to meet their tax obligations, thereby integrating them into a commercial economy. This shift often led to food insecurity as less land was dedicated to food crops.

   Important

   Commercialisation of agriculture under British rule meant a shift from subsistence farming to the cultivation of cash crops for sale in national and international markets, primarily to serve British industrial and trade interests.

   Statement 2 claims that British rulers focused on infrastructural growth in the larger interest of Indians. While it is undeniable that the British did develop significant infrastructure in India, including railways, roads, ports, post, and telegraph, the primary motivation behind these developments was not the welfare or "larger interest" of the Indian population. Instead, these projects were strategically designed to serve colonial interests. Railways, for instance, were crucial for the swift movement of raw materials from the interior to the ports for export to Britain, and for transporting finished British goods to Indian markets. They also facilitated the deployment of troops and administrative control across the vast subcontinent. Similarly, ports were developed to handle the increased volume of trade, and the postal and telegraph systems aided in efficient administration and communication for the colonial government. Any benefits that accrued to Indians, such as improved transport or communication, were largely incidental to these core colonial objectives. The investment in social sectors like education and public health remained woefully inadequate compared to the needs of the population.

   Note

   While infrastructure like railways and roads did provide some indirect benefits to Indians, their construction was primarily driven by the British need for administrative control, economic exploitation (moving raw materials and finished goods), and military strategy.

   Considering these points, Statement 1 is true because British policies directly led to the commercialisation of Indian agriculture for colonial benefit. Statement 2 is false because the focus of British infrastructural growth was primarily on serving their own administrative, economic, and military interests, not the "larger interest of Indians."

   ✓Final answer

   In short, Statement 1 is true as British policies indeed commercialised Indian agriculture, while Statement 2 is false because British infrastructural development was primarily for colonial interests, not the welfare of Indians. The correct option is (A) Statement 1 is true and Statement 2 is false.

6. CBSE 2025Set 58/5/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement 1 : The British policies led to huge employment generation in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the Indian Economy. Statement 2 : The real motive of the colonial government's infrastructural development was to benefit interests of India. In the light of the given statements, choose the correct alternative from the following : (A) Statement 1 is true and Statement 2 is false. (B) Statement 1 is false and Statement 2 is true. (C) Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. (D) Both Statements 1 and 2 are false.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both statements are historically incorrect: British policies did not generate large employment in secondary/tertiary sectors, and infrastructure development was designed to serve British interests, not India’s.

   Let’s examine each statement carefully, because this question tests your understanding of the economic impact of British colonial rule on India — a core topic in the Indian Economic Development syllabus.

   Statement 1 claims that British policies led to huge employment generation in the secondary and tertiary sectors. This is the opposite of what actually happened. Under colonial rule, India’s traditional handicraft industries (secondary sector) were systematically destroyed — tariffs were kept low to allow British manufactured goods to flood Indian markets, while Indian artisans were denied protection. The tertiary sector (services) also remained underdeveloped, limited mostly to low-level administrative and clerical jobs needed to run the colonial apparatus. There was no “huge” employment generation; instead, the economy became more agrarian, with over 70% of the workforce dependent on agriculture by the end of British rule. So Statement 1 is false.

   Statement 2 says the real motive of colonial infrastructural development was to benefit India’s interests. This too is false. Railways, ports, telegraph lines, and roads were built primarily to serve British economic and military objectives — to transport raw materials (cotton, jute, coal) from the interior to ports for export to Britain, and to move British troops quickly. Any benefit to India was incidental, not intentional. The infrastructure was not designed to integrate India’s domestic market or promote Indian industry. So Statement 2 is also false.

   Watch out

   A common mistake is to think that because railways and ports were built, India must have benefited. The key is to ask whose interests drove the investment — and the answer is Britain’s, not India’s.

   ✓Final answer

   Both Statements 1 and 2 are false. The correct alternative is (D).

7. CBSE 2024Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement 1 : Under the colonial rule, basic infrastructure (like railways, post and telegraph etc.) was developed. Statement 2 : The real motive behind the infrastructural development in India was to strengthen the British interests. In the light of the given statements, choose the correct alternative from the following : (A) Statement 1 is true and Statement 2 is false. (B) Statement 1 is false and Statement 2 is true. (C) Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. (D) Both Statements 1 and 2 are false.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both statements are factually correct: the British did build railways, posts, and telegraphs in India, but their sole purpose was to serve colonial economic and military interests, not India’s development. Hence, both statements are true.

   This question tests your understanding of the true nature of colonial infrastructure — a classic trap in Indian Economic Development. Many students see “railways, post, telegraph” and think “modernisation”, but the key is motive.

   Statement 1 is undeniably true. The British introduced railways in 1853, established a postal system (the Indian Post Office Act of 1854), and laid telegraph lines across the subcontinent. These were real, physical developments — you can verify this from any NCERT or standard history text.

   Statement 2 is equally true, and this is where the economic insight lies. The British did not build railways to connect Indian villages or promote trade among Indians. Railways were built to:

   • Move raw materials (cotton, indigo, jute, coal) from the interior to ports for export to Britain.
   • Transport British manufactured goods into the Indian market.
   • Move troops quickly to suppress any rebellion — the 1857 revolt made military mobility a priority.

   Similarly, the postal and telegraph systems were designed to facilitate British administration and commercial control, not to serve the Indian public. The telegraph, for instance, allowed the colonial government in Calcutta to communicate instantly with district officers and military commanders.

   Watch out

   A common mistake is to think that because infrastructure existed, it was “development” for India. In reality, the infrastructural development during British rule was not for the benefit of the Indian people but to serve colonial interests. So don’t confuse presence of infrastructure with purpose.

   Thus, both statements are factually accurate — the infrastructure was built (Statement 1), and the motive was colonial self-interest (Statement 2). They do not contradict each other.

   ✓Final answer

   Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. The correct alternative is (C).

8. CBSE 2024Set 58/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.During the British rule, India's foreign trade had various features except __________. (Choose the correct alternative to fill in the blank) (A) Restrictive policies of commodity production, trade and tariff (B) British monopoly over India's exports and imports (C) Free trade from India to the rest of the world (D) Large export surplus

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The question asks which feature was not present in India's foreign trade under British rule. The correct answer is (C) "Free trade from India to the rest of the world" — because British policies deliberately restricted India's trade freedom to serve colonial interests.

   The key to answering this lies in understanding the colonial character of India's foreign trade during British rule. The British did not run India's trade for India's benefit; they ran it to extract raw materials and create a market for British manufactured goods. This meant trade was anything but free.

   Let's examine each option against the historical record.

   Option (A): Restrictive policies of commodity production, trade and tariff — This was absolutely true. The British imposed high tariffs on Indian textile exports to Britain while allowing British goods to enter India with low or zero tariffs. They also restricted what Indians could produce (e.g., discouraging modern industry) and controlled trade routes. So this feature did exist.

   Option (B): British monopoly over India's exports and imports — Also true. British firms and shipping companies dominated India's foreign trade. Indian merchants were systematically sidelined. The direction of trade was also controlled: most exports went to Britain, and most imports came from Britain. This was a monopoly in practice.

   Option (C): Free trade from India to the rest of the world — This is the false one. "Free trade" means no restrictions on who you trade with, what you trade, and at what prices. Under British rule, India could not freely trade with other countries. For example, India was forced to export raw cotton to Britain even if other countries offered better prices, and was forced to import British textiles even if cheaper alternatives existed elsewhere. Trade was managed for colonial advantage, not free.

   Watch out

   A common mistake is to think "free trade" existed because goods moved across borders. But movement under compulsion or monopoly is not free trade. Free trade implies voluntary exchange without artificial barriers — the opposite of what colonial policy created.

   Option (D): Large export surplus — This is also true. Throughout British rule, India consistently ran a trade surplus (exports > imports). But this surplus was not a sign of prosperity. It was forced: India exported more than it imported because the British used the surplus to pay for administrative expenses, military costs, and "home charges" (money sent to Britain). The surplus was a drain of wealth, not a healthy trade balance.

   Note

   The export surplus under British rule is a classic example of why trade surplus alone doesn't indicate economic strength. The surplus was extracted, not earned through competitive advantage.

   Therefore, the only feature that was absent from India's foreign trade under British rule was free trade. The British deliberately prevented India from trading freely with the world.

   ✓Final answer

   The correct alternative to fill in the blank is (C) Free trade from India to the rest of the world.

9. CBSE 2024Set 58/3/11 markMCQ
   Q.Read the following statements : Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Choose the correct alternative from those given below : Assertion (A): The agricultural sector under the British rule was primarily the base of the sectoral growth of India. Reason (R): British rulers wanted to take maximum advantage of the Indian agricultural output, for growth of industries in England. Alternatives : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of the Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Under British rule, agriculture was not the base of India's sectoral growth but rather stagnated and was exploited to fuel British industrial expansion; the Assertion is false, but the Reason correctly describes British intent.

   The question asks us to evaluate two claims about the colonial economy. The Assertion suggests that agriculture was the "base of sectoral growth" — implying it drove development across the economy. The Reason states that the British wanted to extract maximum agricultural output to support their own industries back home. We need to test both against what actually happened during colonial rule.

   Start with the Assertion. If agriculture had truly been the base of sectoral growth, we would expect to see investment, modernization, rising productivity, and a thriving rural economy that lifted other sectors. The reality was starkly different. British policies systematically drained the agricultural sector rather than developing it. The introduction of new land revenue systems — the Permanent Settlement, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari — was designed primarily to secure a stable flow of revenue to the colonial state, not to improve farming. Peasants were forced to pay taxes in cash, which pushed them to grow commercial crops for export (indigo, cotton, jute) instead of food crops. This made Indian agriculture vulnerable and unbalanced.

   Productivity remained abysmally low throughout the colonial period. There was negligible investment in irrigation, almost no modernization of techniques, and no effort to provide credit or support to farmers. Frequent famines — devastating events that killed millions — were a direct consequence of this neglect and exploitation. By the time of independence in 1947, agriculture was stagnant, contributing about half of national income but employing the vast majority of the population in grinding poverty. This was not a sector driving growth; it was a sector held back and bled dry.

   Note

   The term "sectoral growth" implies that one sector (here, agriculture) acts as an engine, generating surplus, investment, and dynamism that spills over into industry and services. Colonial agriculture did the opposite — it was a source of extraction, not expansion.

   Now consider the Reason. The British colonial project was fundamentally extractive. India was integrated into the global economy as a supplier of raw materials and a captive market for British manufactured goods. Agricultural produce — raw cotton, jute, indigo, tea — was shipped to Britain to feed the textile mills of Lancashire and other industrial centers. The profits and the value-added manufacturing happened in England, not in India. Indian handicrafts and nascent industries were deliberately undermined through tariffs and policies that favored British imports. The Reason accurately captures this exploitative intent: the British did indeed want to maximize the advantage they could draw from Indian agriculture to fuel their own industrial revolution.

   Important

   The colonial economy was structured around the interests of British industry, not Indian development. Agriculture was a source of raw materials and revenue, not a foundation for balanced growth within India.

   So we have an Assertion that mischaracterizes the role of agriculture — it was not the base of growth but rather a stagnant, exploited sector — and a Reason that correctly identifies British motives. The two are related in theme (both concern agriculture under colonial rule), but the Reason does not explain the Assertion because the Assertion itself is incorrect. The British extraction described in the Reason is precisely why agriculture could not serve as a base for sectoral growth.

   ✓Final answer

   Assertion (A) is false because agriculture under British rule stagnated and was exploited, not developed as a base for sectoral growth. Reason (R) is true, correctly describing the extractive intent of British policy. The correct alternative is (D).

10. CBSE 2023Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
    Q.Read the following statements carefully : Statement 1 : Commercialization of agriculture under the British rule was responsible for frequent famines between 1875 and 1900. Statement 2 : During British rule, India began to export food grains. In light of the given statements, choose the correct alternative from the following : (A) Statement 1 is true and Statement 2 is false. (B) Statement 1 is false and Statement 2 is true. (C) Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. (D) Both Statements 1 and 2 are false.

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    Both statements are historically accurate: British-era commercialization of agriculture forced a shift from subsistence food crops to cash crops, making India a net exporter of food grains even during famines, which worsened food availability.

    Let’s unpack the economic logic behind these two statements. The key here is understanding how commercialization of agriculture under colonial rule changed the incentives and structure of Indian farming.

    Before the British, Indian agriculture was largely subsistence-oriented — farmers grew food primarily for their own consumption and local needs. The British introduced a system where land revenue had to be paid in cash, not kind. This forced farmers to grow cash crops (like cotton, indigo, opium, and later wheat) that could be sold in markets, rather than food grains for local use. This is the essence of commercialization: production for sale, not for self-consumption.

    Now, why did this lead to famines? When a region’s farmers shift from growing food grains to cash crops, the local food supply shrinks. If a drought or crop failure hits, there is no buffer stock of food grains because the land was used for export-oriented crops. At the same time, the British administration did not intervene to redirect food supplies — instead, they continued to export food grains from other parts of India to Britain or other colonies, even when famine conditions prevailed. This is exactly what happened during the devastating famines of 1876–78, 1896–97, and 1899–1900.

    Watch out

    A common mistake is to think that famines were caused only by low rainfall or crop failure. The real economic mechanism was that commercialization redirected food away from local markets and made the food system fragile — a drought that would have been manageable in a subsistence system became catastrophic when food was being exported.

    Statement 2 is also correct. Under British rule, India became a net exporter of food grains — particularly wheat and rice — to Britain and other parts of the empire. This was a deliberate policy: India’s trade surplus was used to pay for British imports and administrative costs. Even during famine years, exports continued. For instance, in the famine of 1876–78, India exported record quantities of wheat to Britain.

    Note

    | Period | Key observation |

    |--------|----------------|

    | 1875–1900 | Frequent major famines (1876–78, 1896–97, 1899–1900) |

    | Same period | India was a net exporter of food grains |

    | Causal link | Commercialization → shift to cash crops → reduced local food availability + continued exports → famine severity |

    So both statements are factually correct and causally linked. Statement 1 describes the consequence (famines), and Statement 2 describes the mechanism (food grain exports) that made those famines worse.

    ✓Final answer

    Both Statements 1 and 2 are true. The correct alternative is (C).

11. CBSE 2023Set 58/4/11 markMCQ
    Q.Under the British Rule, commercialisation of agriculture resulted in shifting of agricultural production from ________ crops to ________ crops. (Choose the correct alternative to fill up the blanks)

    (a) Cash, Food

    (b) Cotton, Jute

    (c) Food, Cash

    (d) Jute, Food

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    The British forced Indian farmers to shift from growing food crops (for local consumption) to cash crops (for export and industrial use), making the correct fill-in Food, Cash.

    This question tests your understanding of how British colonial policy distorted Indian agriculture. The key concept is commercialisation of agriculture — the shift from subsistence farming (growing what you eat) to market-oriented farming (growing what sells for profit). Under British rule, this was not a voluntary choice by farmers; it was enforced through high land revenue demands, coercion, and the needs of British industry and trade.

    Before the British, Indian farmers primarily grew food crops — rice, wheat, millets — to feed themselves and their local communities. The British administration, however, wanted India to supply raw materials for British factories (cotton for Manchester, jute for Dundee) and to produce exportable commodities (indigo, tea, opium) that earned revenue for the Empire. So they systematically pushed farmers to replace food cultivation with cash crops — crops grown purely for sale in the market.

    Watch out

    A common mistake is to think "cash crops" means crops that give the farmer cash income. That is true, but the problem was that this shift reduced food availability for Indians, leading to famines. The British did not care about local food security — they cared about exports and revenue.

    Let's examine the options:

    • (a) Cash, Food — This would mean shifting from cash crops to food crops. That is the opposite of what happened. The British did not encourage food production; they discouraged it.
    • (b) Cotton, Jute — Both are cash crops. The shift was not from one cash crop to another; it was from food to cash crops in general.
    • (c) Food, Cash — This is correct. Farmers moved from growing food for subsistence to growing cash crops for the market.
    • (d) Jute, Food — This would mean shifting from a cash crop (jute) to food crops. Again, the opposite of reality.

    Note

    The term "commercialisation of agriculture" itself implies a shift toward market-oriented production. In the Indian context under British rule, this meant a shift away from food crops (which were not traded widely) and toward cash crops (which were traded nationally and internationally).

    So the blanks are: from Food crops to Cash crops.

    ✓Final answer

    The correct alternative is (c) Food, Cash. Under British rule, commercialisation of agriculture forced Indian farmers to shift from growing food crops for local consumption to growing cash crops for export and industrial use.

12. CBSE 2022Set MARCH1 markMCQ
    Q.Main source of livelihood in India during the British period.

    (a) Agriculture

    (b) Manufacturing

    (c) Trade

    (d) Mining

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    Agriculture was the main source of livelihood in India during the British period.

    As studied in the Kerala Plus One (DHSE) economics chapter Indian Economy on the Eve of Independence, the colonial economy was predominantly agrarian. About 70-75% of the working population depended on agriculture, yet productivity was low because of stagnation, low investment, the exploitative land-revenue (zamindari) systems and forced commercialisation of crops. Manufacturing had been de-industrialised, and trade and mining engaged only a small fraction of workers.

    ✓Final answer

    (a) Agriculture — the principal livelihood of most Indians under British rule.