Time: 2 hours and 30 minutes

Date-07-10-22

Marks: 40

Answer any one of the following long questions. This question carries 20 marks.

1. Discuss the Nehruvian developmental strategy between 1947-1964. Describe major Nehruvian
economic policies.

2. Write an essay on Indian industry in 19th century colonial India. Deal briefly with the impact of
colonialism on India's traditional industries but focus more on the rise of modern industries from
1850s to 1900. Explain why India saw only retarded industrialization during 1850s-1900.

Write short notes on any two of the following five topics. Each topic carries 10 marks.

1) Gender and colonial rural India: with reference to Prem Chowdhury's and Samita Sen's work.

2. Canals in colonial India.

3 Describe the relationship between the economic on the one hand and the social, cultural and
political context on the other in economic history.

4. Discuss the impact of colonialism on Indian economy.

5. Discuss famines and colonial policy on famines between 1850-1900.

ANS-1

The Nehruvian Developmental Strategy (1947-1964): Building Self-Reliance

Following India's independence in 1947, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned a

unique development strategy. This approach, often referred to as the "Nehruvian model" or
the "Nehru-Mahalanobis strategy," aimed to achieve rapid economic growth while promoting
social justice and self-reliance.

Key Features:

 Mixed Economy: Nehru advocated a mixed economy, where the state played a vital
role in strategic sectors like steel, heavy industries, and infrastructure. This contrasted
with complete nationalization or pure reliance on the market.
 Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI): The core tenet was to reduce
dependence on imports by developing domestic industries, particularly heavy
industries like steel, machine tools, and chemicals. This aimed to create a strong
industrial base for further growth.
 Five-Year Plans: Guided by economist P.C. Mahalanobis, India adopted five-year
plans to prioritize resource allocation and target specific economic goals. These plans
 focused on developing basic and heavy industries, agriculture, and social
infrastructure.
 Public Sector Investments: Massive investments were directed towards building
public sector enterprises (PSEs) in key sectors like steel, coal, power, and
transportation. These were seen as engines of growth and instruments for achieving
social objectives.
 Land Reforms: Steps were taken to redistribute land ownership and improve the
condition of farmers through initiatives like zamindari abolition. This aimed to
enhance agricultural productivity and rural incomes.
 Focus on Science and Technology: Nehru recognized the importance of scientific
advancement and established institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology
(IITs) and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) to cultivate scientific talent and foster
technological innovation.

Major Economic Policies:

 Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948: Classified industries into three categories –

public sector, private sector, and joint sector – defining the areas where the state
would play a leading role.
 Planning Commission: Established in 1950, the commission formulated and
implemented the five-year plans, directing economic development strategies.
 Reserve Bank of India Act of 1949: Granted the RBI greater autonomy and control
over monetary policy, facilitating financial stability and directed credit allocation.
 Minimum Wages Act of 1948: Introduced minimum wages for certain industries to
improve worker welfare and address income inequality.

Impact and Evaluation:

The Nehruvian strategy achieved significant success in some areas:

 Rapid industrial growth: India witnessed considerable industrial expansion, laying

the foundation for future development.
 Self-sufficiency: Dependence on imports decreased, particularly in essential goods.
 Improved infrastructure: Investments in transportation, power, and irrigation
boosted connectivity and agricultural productivity.
 Scientific advancements: India made significant strides in scientific research and
technological development.

However, the strategy also faced challenges:

 Limited agricultural growth: Focus on heavy industries overshadowed agricultural

development, leading to imbalances.
 Bureaucratic bottlenecks: Public sector enterprises sometimes suffered from
inefficiencies and slow decision-making.
 Slower growth later: Economic growth slowed down in the late 1950s and early
1960s, prompting policy changes.
Conclusion:

The Nehruvian developmental strategy remains a subject of debate. While contributing to

industrial growth and infrastructure development, it also faced certain shortcomings. It's
crucial to understand this period within its historical context and acknowledge its
complexities when evaluating its legacy.

Arguments by Scholars on the Nehruvian Strategy:

The Nehruvian model has attracted diverse and often contrasting viewpoints from scholars
across various disciplines. Here's a breakdown of some key arguments:

Supporters:

 Jagdish Bhagwati: Argues that the Nehruvian model effectively laid the foundation
for future industrial growth and technological advancements, laying the groundwork
for the success of later reforms.
 Amiya Bagchi: Emphasizes the model's role in promoting self-reliance and reducing
dependence on colonial economic patterns, highlighting its significance in national
identity and strategic autonomy.
 Isher Ahluwalia: Acknowledges shortcomings but commends the strategy's focus on
building heavy industries, public health, and education, establishing necessary
infrastructure for long-term development.

Critics:

 Paul Baran: Argues that the model created bottlenecks and inefficiencies due to
overreliance on state planning and control, hindering agricultural development and
private sector dynamism.
 Raj Krishna: Criticizes the emphasis on import substitution, claiming it led to
inefficient industries and higher costs for consumers, hindering export
competitiveness.
 Morris D. Morris: Argues that the focus on large-scale public sector enterprises led
to significant corruption and mismanagement, hampering efficient resource allocation
and economic growth.

Neutral Approaches:

 Srinivasan S. Iyengar: Emphasizes the complex historical context and political

constraints affecting the model's implementation, calling for a nuanced understanding
beyond simplistic critiques.
 Lance Pritchett: Analyzes the Nehruvian strategy through a "learning-by-doing"
framework, highlighting its initial successes and later adjustments as India gained
development experience.
 Pranab Bardhan: Recognizes both the model's positive contributions in building
capabilities and its limitations in terms of agricultural neglect and bureaucratic
hurdles.
Conclusion:

The Nehruvian developmental strategy continues to spark debate due to its multifaceted
impact and complex historical context. By examining contrasting scholarly viewpoints, we
gain a deeper understanding of the successes, limitations, and ongoing relevance of this
crucial period in India's economic journey.

ANS-2 The industrial landscape of 19th-century colonial India was indeed a complex
amalgamation of tradition and change, marked by various interpretations and debates among
historians and economists. Let's delve deeper into the nuanced dynamics:
Deindustrialization vs. Transformation: The narrative of deindustrialization suggests that
British policies led to the decline of India's pre-colonial industries, particularly textiles and
handicrafts. Scholars like Amiya Bagchi argue that British intervention disrupted traditional
artisan networks and flooded Indian markets with cheaper British goods. However,
counterarguments by economists like Morris D. Morris emphasize internal factors such as
political fragmentation and inadequate infrastructure contributing to pre-colonial decline.
Furthermore, scholars like Tirthankar Roy highlight the emergence of new industries catering
to colonial demands, such as jute in Bengal and indigo in Bihar, challenging the notion of
uniform deindustrialization.
Colonial Policies and their Impact: Colonial policies indeed influenced industrial
development in India. Land revenue systems like zamindari created distortions, while
discriminatory tariffs favored British imports over indigenous industries. Despite these
challenges, investments in infrastructure, particularly railways, by the colonial
administration, had mixed effects. While they facilitated transportation and communication,
they also served British interests and disrupted local economies. Scholars like Isher
Ahluwalia acknowledge this dual impact.
Seeds of the Future: Despite the obstacles, the 19th century laid the groundwork for future
industrialization. Early ventures in cotton and jute mills, often led by Indian entrepreneurs,
contributed to the emergence of large-scale industries in the future. This period witnessed a
"learning-by-doing" process, where initial endeavors paved the way for subsequent
advancements, as noted by Lance Pritchett.
Scholarly Debates: The scholarly debate surrounding Indian industry in 19th-century
colonial India remains dynamic. While deindustrialization is a significant theme, scholars like
Raj Krishna argue against oversimplification, emphasizing internal factors and regional
variations. The transformative view gains traction, highlighting adaptations and nascent
industrial growth amidst colonial constraints. This ongoing debate reflects the complexity of
India's industrial history during this period.
In conclusion, understanding the industrial dynamics of 19th-century colonial India requires a
nuanced approach that considers the interplay of internal and external factors, colonial
policies, and entrepreneurial initiatives. Recognizing both the disruptive and transformative
aspects contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of this crucial period in India's
industrial development.