International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
ISSN: 2319-4421
An Overview of Indian Economic Structure under British Rule
Dr. Hareet Kumar Meena, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University,
Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh
ABSTRACT
METHODOLOGY
The economic policies followed by the British rule led to
the rapid transformation of India’s economy into a
colonial economy whose nature and structure were
determined by the needs of the economy of Britain. The
economic policies pursued by the colonial government in
India were concerned more with the protection and
promotion of the economic interests of Britain rather than
with the development of the Indian economy. Such policies
brought about a fundamental change in the structure of
the Indian economy and transformed India into mere
supplier of raw materials and consumer of finished
industrial products from Britain. Early nationalist leaders
of Indian freedom struggle concluded that the decay of
traditional industries, inadequate development of modern
industries and increasing dependence of the people on
agriculture during the British period were largely due to
the overall impact of British policies. The ruthless
exploitation under British colonial rule completely
devastated India’s economy. Throughout the British rule
Indian population faced frequent famines, had one of the
world's lowest life expectancies, suffered from pervasive
malnutrition and was largely illiterate. The British
conquerors totally disrupted the traditional structure of
the Indian economy. They exploited Indian resources and
carried away Indian wealth as tribute. The results of this
subordination of the Indian economy to the interests of
British trade and industry were many and varied. As per
British economist, Angus Maddison, India's share of the
world income went from 27% in 1700 AD to 3% in 1950.
An elaborative research methodology was used to
investigate and interpret the impact of British rule on
Indian economical structure from the second half of
eighteenth century. The researcher has relied both on
primary sources as well as secondary sources for
collection of data. Primary data has been gathered from
archival records; whereas secondary data is based on
analysis and discussions.
Keywords
Colony, Deindustrialization, Drain of Wealth, Famine,
Imperialism, Landless labour
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The paper focuses on the economic outlook of British
imperial rule in India. While making a comparison
between the economical structure of pre-colonial period
and colonial period, this study also interprets the course
and reasons behind the economic stagnation of India from
the mid of 18th century.
INTRODUCTION
India had an independent and sustainable economy before
the advent of British rule. Though agriculture was the
main source of livelihood for most people, the country’s
economy was characterized by various kinds of
manufacturing activities (Kumar, 1982). India was
particularly well known for its handicraft industries in the
fields of cotton and silk textiles, metal and precious stoneworks etc. These products enjoyed a worldwide market
based on the reputation of the fine quality of material used
and the high standards of craftsmanship seen in all imports
from India.
During the Mughal period (1526–1707) India experienced
unprecedented prosperity in history. The gross domestic
product of India in the 16th century was estimated at about
25.1% of the world economy (Bagchi, 2000; Naoroji,
1901). An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts
the annual revenue of Emperor Akbar's treasury in 1600
AD at £17.5 million. 1 The gross domestic product of
Mughal India in 1600 AD was estimated at about 24.3% of
the world economy, the second largest in the world. By
this time the Mughal Empire had expanded to include
almost 90 per cent of South Asia and enforced a uniform
taxation system (Patel, 1952; Moreland, 1968). In 1700
AD, the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported
annual revenue of more than £100 million in which the
largest portion of revenue was collected from the fertile
region of Bengal. The French traveller, Francis Bernier,
described seventeenth century Bengal as, “The knowledge
I have acquired of Bengal in two visits inclines me to
believe that it is richer than Egypt. It exports, in
1
It is quite interesting to mention that in contrast to
Akbar’s reign the entire treasury of Great Britain, two
hundred years later in 1800 AD, totalled £16 million.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
www.irjcjournals.org
33
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
abundance, cottons and silks, rice, sugar and butter. It
produces amply for its own consumption- wheat,
vegetables, grains, fowls, ducks and geese. It has immense
herds of pigs and flocks of sheep and goats. Fish of every
kind it has in profusion. From rajmahal to the sea is an
endless number of canals, cut in bygone ages from the
Ganges by immense labour for navigation and irrigation.”
Angus Maddison, estimated India's wealth relative to
world GDP for the years 1000 AD, 1500 AD, 1600 AD,
and 1700 AD.2 As per his findings, India's share of world
GDP was slightly more than a quarter in the year 1000 AD
and was slightly less than a quarter between 1500AD-1700
AD (see Table 1).
Table 1- GDP of Different Nations
(In millions Dollars)
Nations
India
China
West Europe
World Total
1000AD
33,750
26,550
10,165
116,790
Time Span
1500 AD 1600 AD
60,500
74,250
61,800
96,000
44,345
65,955
247,116
329,417
1700 AD
90,750
82,800
83,395
3,71,369
Source: Maddison, A. (2001). The World Economy: A
Millennial Perspective. France: Development Centre of
the Organization for Economic Co–Operation and
Development
Up to the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the East India
Company’s role in India was that of a trading corporation
which brought goods or precious metals into India and
exchanged them for Indian goods like textiles and spices,
which it sold abroad. Its profits came primarily from the
sale of Indian goods abroad. After the Battle of Plassey in
1757, the pattern of the company’s commercial relations
with India underwent a qualitative change (Mc Lane,
1993; Roy, 2013). 3 Now the company could use its
political control over Bengal to acquire monopolistic
control over Indian trade. Moreover, it utilized the
revenues of Bengal to finance its export of Indian goods.
2
3
In the beginning of 18th century, mighty Mughal
Empire was replaced by the Marathas in the regions of
Central India while the other small regional kingdoms
also claimed their independence in different time
intervals. The British imperial empire began to grow in
India in the middle of 18th century by defeating the
above-mentioned political powers. From this time
onwards the economy of India was tuned low.
British rule gradually expanded in India from 1757
onwards. They used huge revenue, generated from
Bengal for purchasing Indian raw materials, spices and
goods. Thus the continuous inflow of bullion that used
to come into India on account of foreign trade stopped
altogether. The Colonial government used land revenue
for waging wars in India and Europe while leaving
little for development of India.
ISSN: 2319-4421
The company used its political power to dictate terms to
the weavers of Bengal who were forced to sell their
products at a cheaper and dictated price, even at a loss
(Strang, 1904). Moreover, their labour was no longer free.
Many of them were compelled to work for the company
for low wages and were forbidden to work for Indian
merchants. The company eliminated its rival traders, both
Indian and foreign, and prevented them from offering
higher wages or prices to the Bengal handicraftsmen. The
servants of the company monopolized the sale of raw
cotton and made the Bengal weaver pay exorbitant prices
for it. Thus, the weaver lost both ways, as buyer as well as
seller. At the same time, Indian textiles had to pay heavy
duties while entering in England. The British Government
was determined to protect its rising machine industry
whose products could still not compete with the cheaper
and better Indian goods. Even so Indian products held
some of their ground (Dutt, 1906; Aghion, 2008). The real
blow to Indian handicrafts fell after 1813, when they lost
not only their foreign markets but, what was of much
importance their market in India was lost itself.
The Industrial Revolution in British completely
transformed Britain’s economy and its economic relations
with India (Kenneth, 1985). During the second half of the
18th century and the first few decades of the 19 th century,
Britain underwent profound social and economic
transformation and British industry developed and
expanded rapidly. In 1769, the British industrialists
compelled the company by law to export raw-material
every year British manufactures amounting to over £
380,000 even though it suffered a loss on the transaction.
In 1793, they forced the company to grant t hem the use of
3,000 tons of its shipping every year to carry their goods
(Michael, 1963).
Exports of British cotton goods to the East, mostly to
India, increased from £ 156 in 1794 to nearly £ 110,000 in
1813, which is by nearly 700 times. But this increase was
not enough to satisfy the wild hopes of the Lancashire
manufactures who began to actively search for ways and
means of promoting the export of their products to India
(Guha, 1963). As R. C. Dutt aptly pointed out in 1901 that,
“The effort of the Parliamentary Select committee of 1812
was to discover how they (Indian manufactures) could be
replaced by British manufactures, and how British
industries could be promoted at the expenses of Indian
industries.”
Indian hand-made goods were unable to compete against
the much cheaper products of British mills which had been
rapidly produced by using inventions and a wider use of
steam power. Consequently, foreign imports rose rapidly.
Imports of British cotton goods alone increased from
£1,100,000 in 1813 to £ 6,300,000 in 1856 (Bagchi, 2000).
The free trade imposed on India was, however, one sided.
While the doors of India were thrown wide open to foreign
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
www.irjcjournals.org
34
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
goods, at the same time Indian products which could still
complete with British products were subjected to heavy
import duties on entry into Britain. The British had not
taken Indian goods on fair and equal terms even at this
stage when their industries had achieved technological
superiority over Indian handicrafts. Duties in Britain on
several categories on Indian goods continued to be high till
their export to Britain virtually ceased. For example,
Indian sugar had to pay on entry into Britain a duty that
was over three times its cost process. In some cases duties
in England went up as high as 400 per cent (Datta, 1964;
Banerjee, 2005). As a result of such prohibitive import
duties and development of machine industries, Indian
exports to foreign countries fall rapidly.
POPULAR DEBATES AND VIEWS
Most of the Indian national scholars (Sarkar, 1985;
Naoroji, 1901; Chandra, 1981; Dutt, 1970; Ambedkar,
1925) opined that the India was rich in economy, culture
and polity. But it was due to advent of foreigners that it
gradually got pushed into backwardness.4 This gives just a
brief glimpse of some of the processes of continuous
impoverishment, which transformed India from one of the
richest regions in the world to a state of utter destitution
and stagnancy. According to these scholars, the British
rulers of India consciously shattered the country’s
economy, exploited her wealth and drained it to England.
As per their view, India was in transitional phase of
progress before the advent of the British and the capitalist
development might have taken place in this country, if she
could have escaped the colonial exploitation in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, D. R.
Gadgil, disagreed with this argument as according to him a
number of factors which acted in India’s pre-capitalist
economy would not have permitted its development along
the capitalist path (Gadgil, 1948). Charles Forbes, who
stayed 22 years in India and returned to England to
become a member of Parliament, spoke in the House of
Commons in 1836 that, “Plundering the people of India
day after day and year after year to an extent horrible to
be contemplated.” He added that, “In fifty years they had
extracted from India more than would be sufficient to pay
off the national debt.” However, most British scholars
attribute economic stagnation during the British period due
to over population, religion, caste, social attitude, value
system and other social institutions. Their approach is
called as colonial approach (Johannes, 1996).
R. P Dutt, a Marxist dialectician, have analyzed three
periods in the history of imperialist rule in India. This
4
They strongly argued with logical explanations and
evidences that the economic policies of the British
rule in India were primarily responsible for the
economic backwardness of India.
ISSN: 2319-4421
duration is usually divided into three phases. In the first
phase or the mercantile phase (1757-1813) the East India
Company completely monopolized trade and used its
political power to dictate terms to the artisans of Bengal
who were forced to sell their products at cheaper rates.
The essence of mercantile capitalism was buying cheap
and selling at higher prices, which the Company
successfully achieved. The second phase has been termed
as Industrial Capitalism or Free trade (1813-1857). The
Industrial revolution in England completely transformed
Britain’s economy and its relations with India (Keay,
1993). In this phase, India became the chief exporter of
raw materials to British industries and also served as the
main market to industrial goods from England. The
industrial needs were the basic guide of British commercial policy. The Indian goods faced tough competition
from machine made goods in this phase. The third and
final phase of British plunder is called the era of Financial
Capitalism (1860-1947). During this period, the British
administration introduced roadways, railways, post and
telegraph in India for their own commercial and political
needs. As a result of the various investments made the
burden of public debt on India increased. India became a
colony of the British in the true sense.
A close look at the economic changes of India during the
British period expose that whenever India's colonial
economic links, in terms of foreign trade and inflow of
foreign capital, were disrupted one can easily trace that
Indian economy made strides in industrial development
(Sen, 1998; Bose, 1993). During the 20th century, the
colonial economic links were interrupted thrice: first,
during the First World War (1914-18), second, at the time
of the Great Economic Depression (1929-32), and third
during the Second World War (1939-45). In other words,
free flow of foreign trade and capital meant economic
stagnation in India, while their absence provided a chance
for Indian capital to open up avenues of industrial growth.
DISCUSSION
From 1600 and 1757, the East India Company’s role in
India was that of a trading corporation. It brought goods or
precious metals into India and exchanged them for Indian
goods like textiles and spices which it sold abroad. Its
profits came primarily from the sale of India goods
abroad. This led to the opening of new markets for Indian
goods in Britain and other countries (Chandra, 1966). This
in turn increased the export of Indian manufactures and
thus encouraged their production. That was why the Indian
rulers tolerated and even encouraged the establishment of
East India Company’s factories in India. But from the
beginning, the English manufacturers were jealous of the
popularity of Indian textiles in Britain. They were much
upset when all of a sudden people preferred light cotton
clothes, made in India. So they put pressure on their
government to restrict and prohibit the sale of Indian
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
www.irjcjournals.org
35
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
textiles in England. Laws were passed prohibiting the wear
or use of printed or dyed cotton cloth. Heavy duties were
imposed on the import of plain cloth (Marshall, 1978). Yet
the Indian textiles held their reputation in foreign markets
until the middle of the 18th century when the English
textile industry began to develop on the basis of new and
advanced technology.
India provided unlimited opportunities for export. This
was particularly true of colon textile industry which served
as the main vehicle of the Industrial Revolution in Britain.
Britain had already evolved the colonial pattern of trade
which helped the Industrial Revolution and which in turn
strengthened this pattern; the colonies exported
agricultural and mineral raw materials to Britain while the
latter sold them the manufactured goods (Bardhan, 1984;
Srinivas, 1955). Consequently, there was a sudden and
quick collapse of the urban handicrafts industry. Indian
goods made with primitive techniques could not compete
with industrial goods made in England. Moreover, the
railways enabled British manufacturers to reach and
uproot the traditional industries in the remotest villages of
the country. The cotton-weaving and spinning were the
worst hit. Silk and woollen textiles fared no better. A
similar fate overtook the iron, pottery, glass, paper, metals,
guns, tanning and dyeing industries.
The tragedy was heightened by the fact that the decay of
the traditional industries was not accompanied by the
growth of modern machine industries. So the ruined
handicraftsmen and artisans were forced to crowd into
agriculture (Government of India, 1867; Bowen, 2002).
This had upset the balance of economic life in the
villages. 5 The destruction of rural crafts broke up the
union between agriculture and domestic industry in the
countryside and thus contributed to the destruction of the
self-sufficient rural economy. Millions of peasants who
had supplemented their income by part-time spinning and
weaving had to rely overwhelmingly on cultivation.
Millions of rural artisans, having lost their traditional
livelihood, became agricultural labourers or petty tenants
holding tiny plots. They added to the general pressure on
land.6 This increasing pressure on agriculture was one of
5
6
India being a country with predominance of
agriculture, any impact of government on the people
turned out to be essentially the impact of government
on the village. With the initiation of British rule, the
new land tenures, new land ownership concepts,
tenancy changes and heavier state demand for land
revenue triggered of far-reaching changes in rural
economy and social relationship, particularly in the
villages.
The decay of traditional cottage industries made the
ruined handicraftsmen and artisans to crowd into
agriculture. The gradual destruction of rural crafts
destroyed the union between agriculture and domestic
ISSN: 2319-4421
the major causes of the extreme poverty of India under the
British rule. India had now become an agricultural colony
of manufacturing Britain.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain led to the rise of a
powerful class of manufacturers. This had affected the
Indian administration and policies (Malleson, 1883). As
this class grew in strength and political influence it began
to attack the trade monopoly of the Company. Since the
profits of this class came from trading, it wanted to
encourage exports of its own products to India as well as
imports of raw materials from India. Not satisfied with
this, the British manufacturers launched a campaign
against the Company’s commercial privileges and
succeeded in abolishing its monopoly of Indian trade in
1813.
With this event a new phase of British economic relations
with India began. Agricultural India was to be an
economic colony of industrial Britain. Henceforth, the
government of India followed a policy of free trade
(Stokes, 1959). As a result, the Indian handicrafts were
exposed to the fierce and unequal competition of the
machine-made products of Britain and faced extinction.
The free trade imposed on India was however one-sided.
Indian goods were subjected to heavy import duties on
entry into Britain. As a result, Indian exports to Britain fall
rapidly. Instead of exporting manufactures, India was now
forced to export raw materials which Britain industries
needed urgently or plantation products like indigo or food
grains which were in short supply in Britain (Dutt, 1906).
Another important malaise of this period was the drain of
wealth from India.7 It all began in Bengal in 1757, when
the Company’s servants began to carry home immense
fortunes extorted from Indian rulers, zamindars, merchants
and common people. In 1765, the Company acquired the
Diwani of Bengal and thus gained control over its
7
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
industry in the countryside and thereby made millions
of peasants rely overwhelmingly on cultivation.
Millions of rural artisans, who lost their traditional
livelihood on this account, became agricultural
labourers on petty tenants holding small plots (Arnold,
1991). They also added to the pressure on land.
The Drain of Wealth theory was systemically initiated
by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1867 and further analyzed and
developed by R. P. Dutt, M. G Ranade, etc. Their
focal point of critique of colonialism was the drain
theory. They pointed out that a large part of India’s
capital and wealth was being transferred or drained to
Britain in the form of salaries and pensions of British
civil and military officials working in India, interests
on loans taken by the Indian government, profits of
the British capitalists in India and the home charges or
expenses of the Indian Government in Britain.
www.irjcjournals.org
36
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
revenues. The Company even more than its servants soon
directly organized the drain (Owen, 2008). The drain took
the form of an excess of India’s exports over its imports
for which India got no return. The victory at Plassey
brought under the control of the East India Company the
richest region of India (Ray, 2011; Mill, 1840). The
government of England was hardly aware of what the
Company’s agents were doing in Bengal. Power was
practically monopolised by a great multitude of isolated
officials, far removed from all control. Some of these
officials were desperate adventurers of broken fortunes
and tarnished honour. No moral scruples deterred these
greedy officials of the Company from gathering wealth.
The higher officials made enormous fortunes from
presents exacted from Indian princes and officials who
looked to their favours for the positions they occupied.
The lower officials who were paid meagre salaries
supplemented them by private trade. The prospects of
wealth easily and rapidly acquired excited the cupidity of
other Englishmen. The spirit of greed affected all sections
of English society. The proprietors of the Company made
it a law to employee their relatives and friends in the
lucrative services of the East India Company. Further, they
clamoured for higher dividends. In 1767, the rate was
raised to ten per cent and in 1771 it was proposed to
enhance it to twelve and a half per cent. Even ministers
and members of the English parliament were infected. The
idea that India could be made to pay off the National debt
was mooted. In no time it became extraordinarily
captivating. It was now bound up with current exaggerated
notions of oriental wealth. Clive had written to the British
Prime Minister, William Pitt, that the Bengal conquest
could in time be used for this purpose (Strang, 1904;
Mason, 1998; Spear, 1975). It was believed that the East
might become a source of direct revenue. Many ministers
and other members of parliament sought populate support
by forcing the Company to pay tribute to the British
government so that India revenues could be used not only
to reduce the public debt but also taxation. The result was
the Act of 1767 obliging the Company to pay the British
treasure 400,000 pound sterling as annual tribute. W. E. H.
Lecky writes, “Without a shadow of authority in the terms
of the charter or in the letter of the law, the ministers had
raised a distinction between the territorial revenue and the
trade revenue of the Company. By threatening the former
they had extorted, in addition to the legitimate duties
which had been paid to the Imperial Exchequer, no less
than 400,000 pounds a year, at a time when the finances of
the Company were altogether unable to bear the exaction.
This tribute which was the true origin of the bankruptcy of
the Company was purely extortionate. In one form or
another it was computed that little less than two million
sterling were paid annually from the Company to the
government”.
The Company needed land revenues to pay for its
purchase of Indian handicrafts, and other goods for export,
ISSN: 2319-4421
to meet the cost of the conquest of India and the
consolidation of the British rule, to pay for the
employment of thousands of Englishmen in superior
administrative and military positions at fabulous salaries
and to meet the costs of economic and administrative
charges needed to enable colonialism to fully penetrate
Indian villages (Cohn, 1996) . The evil of high revenue
demand was made worse because the peasant got little
economic return for it. The government spent very little on
improving agriculture. It devoted most of its income to
meet the needs of the Britain.
In the second half of the 19th century, large-scale machinebased industries appeared in India. Most of them were
owned or controlled by British capitalist. The colonial
government and officials provided all help and showered
all favours on them. In many cases even Indian-owned
companies were controlled by foreign-owned managing
agencies. Indians also found it difficult to get credit from
banks as most of which were dominated by British
financiers. They had to pay high rates of interest. The
government followed a conscious policy of favouring
foreign capital as against Indian capital. The railway
policy of the government discriminated against Indian
enterprise (Steensgard, 1975; Boserup, 1968). It was more
difficult and costlier to distribute Indian goods then to
distribute imported goods. The government helped the
plantation industries by making grants of rent free land to
foreigners. On the whole, the British colonialism rendered
industrial progress exceedingly slow and painful.
CONCLUSION
India had been conquered by other foreign powers before
the British rule; however, the invaders settled in India and
accepted the socio-economic traditions. The difference of
the British conquest lies in the fact that it led to the
emergence of a new political and economic system whose
interests were rooted in a foreign soil and whose policies
were guided solely by those self-motivated interests.
Whereas the early invaders Indianized themselves, the
British tried to keep a distance between them and the
Indian people and exploited Indian resources ruthlessly.
Right from the beginning of their relationship with India,
the British, who had come as traders and had become
rulers and administrators, had influenced the economic
infrastructure of the country. From 1757 to 1857, the
British followed various economic policies to enhance
trade privileges and more importantly to exploit Indian
economic resources. India changed from an exporter of
processed goods for which it received payment in bullion,
to an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of
manufactured goods.
The British rule was a long story of the systematic
exploitation by an imperialistic government of a people
whom they had enslaved by their policy of divide and rule.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
www.irjcjournals.org
37
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
The benefits of British rule were only accidental and
incidental, if any. The main motive of all British policies
was to serve the interests of England. Thus, in 1947 when
the British transferred power to India, we inherited a
crippled economy with a stagnant agriculture and a
peasantry steeped in poverty. As Jawaharlal Nehru
narrates, “India was under an industrial capitalist regime,
but the nature of her economy was largely that of the precapitalist period. She became a passive agent of modern
industrial capitalism suffering all its ills and with hardly
any of its advantage.”
REFERENCES
[1] Aghion, P, The Unequal Effects of Liberalization:
Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in
India. American Economic Association:
The
American Economic Review, 98(4), 1397-1412,
2008.
[2] Bagchi, A. K, Private Investment in India 19001939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96112, 2000.
[3] Banerjee, A., L. Iyer & R. Somanathan, History,
Social Divisions and Public Goods in Rural India.
Switzerland: Journal of the European Economic
Association 3(2-3), 639-47, 2005.
[4] Bardhan, P. K, Land, Labor and Rural Poverty:
Essays in Development Economics. Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 354-59, 1984.
[5] Blyn, G, Agricultural Trends in India 1891-1947:
Output, Availability, and Productivity. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 236-42, 1966.
[6] Bose, S, Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital:
Rural Bengal since 1770. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 203-09, 1993.
[7] Credit, Market and the Agrarian Economy in
Colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 173-79, 1994.
[8] Boserup, E, The Conditions of Agricultural
Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under
Population Pressure. New York: Aldine, 47-51,
1965.
[9] Bowen, H. & Rigby, N, The Worlds of the East
India Company. Suffolk (UK): Boydell Press, 97,
2002.
[10] Boyce, J, Agrarian Impasse in Bengal: Institutional
Constraints to Technological Change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 114- 17, 1987.
[11] Chandra, B, The Rise and Growth of Economic
Nationalism in India. New Delhi: People’s
Publishing House, 246-52, 1966.
[12] Cohn, B. S, Colonialism and Its Forms of
Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 33-46, 1996.
[13] Datta, K. K, Dawn of Renascent India. Bombay:
Allied Publisher, 112-17, 1964.
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421
[14] Davis, K, The Population of India and Pakistan.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 196-205,
1951.
[15] Dutt, R. C, Economic History of India in the
Victorian Age 1837-1901. Kegan Paul, 77-93, 1906.
[16] The Economic History of India under Early British
Rule. Trubner’s Oriental Series, Reprint 2000, 25355, 1950.
[17] Government of India, Report of the Commissioners
Appointed to Enquire into the Famine in Bengal
and Orissa in 1866. Calcutta, Vol. I & II, 164-67,
1867.
[18] Guha, R, A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay
on the Idea of Permanent Settlement. Paris: Mouton
& Co., 242-49, 1963.
[19] Hunter, W. W, Annals of Rural Bengal. Smith Elder
& Company, 120-27, 1872.
[20] Johannes, H. V, British Policy towards Indian
Historical Research and Writing 1870-1930. Indian
Economic & Social History Review (3), 137-49,
1996.
[21] Keay, J, The Honourable Company: A History of
the English East India Company. Harper Collins,
48-54, 1993.
[22] Kenneth, A. R, Trade, Plunder and Settlement:
Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British
Empire 1480–1630. Cambridge University Press,
272-83, 1985.
[23] Klein, I, Plague, Policy and Popular Unrest in
British India. Cambridge University Press: Modern
Asian Studies 22 (4), 723–55, 1988.
[24] Kumar, D, The Cambridge Economic History of
India (c.1757-c.1970). Cambridge University Press,
Vol. II, 104, 1982.
[25] Malleson, G. B, The Decisive Battles of India from
1746 to 1819. W.H. Allen & Company, 273-80,
1883.
[26] Mark, B. J, Clive of India. Constable & Robinson
Limited, 192-98, 1974.
[27] Marshall, P. J, Bengal: The British Bridgehead
1740-1828. The Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge, 65-73, 1978.
[28] Mason, P, The Men Who Ruled India. Delhi: Rupa
& Company, 302-13, 1998.
[29] Mc Lane, J. R, Land and Local Kingship in
Eighteenth Century Bengal. The Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge, 156-63, 1993.
[30] Mehra, P, A Dictionary of Modern History (1707–
1947). Oxford University Press, 189-94, 1985.
[31] Michael, E, The Battle of Plassey and the Conquest
of Bengal. Delhi: Macmillan, 153, 1963.
[32] Mill, J. S, The History of British India. London:
James Maden, 321-33, 1840.
[33] Misra, B. R, Land Revenue Policy in the United
Provinces under British Rule. Nand Kishore &
Brothers, 89-107, 1942.
www.irjcjournals.org
38
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 5, No. 3, March 2016
[34] Moreland, W. H, The Agrarian System of Moslem
India. Oriental Books Corporation, 200-12, 1968.
[35] Nakazato, N, Agrarian System in Eastern Bengal
1870-1910. KP Baggchi & Co., 211, 1994.
[36] Naoroji, D, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India.
London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd., 214-21,
1901.
[37] Owen, N, The British Left and India: Metropolitan
Anti-Imperialism 1885–1947. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 300-03, 2008.
[38] Patel, S. J, Agricultural Labourers in Modern India
and Pakistan. Delhi: Current Book House, 22,
1952.
[39] Ray, I, Bengal Industries and the British Industrial
Revolution (1757-1857). Routledge, 162-63, 2011.
[40] Roy, T, The Economic History of India 1857-1947.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Third edition,
277-81, 2013.
[41] Sen, S, Empire of Free Trade: The East India
Company and the Making of the Colonial
Marketplace. University of Pennsylvania Press,
138-45, 1998.
[42] Spear, T. G. P, Master of Bengal: Clive and His
India. Thames& Hudson, 163, 1975.
[43] Srinivas, M. N, Social Change in Modern
India. Delhi: Orient Longman, 172-83, 1955.
[44] Steensgard, N, The Asian Trade Revolution of the
Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies
and the Decline of the Caravan Trade. University
of Chicago Press, 112-15, 1975.
[45] Stern, P. J, The Company State: Corporate
Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of
the British Empire in India. Oxford University
Press, 373-75, 2011.
[46] Stokes, E, The English Utilitarians and India.
Clarendon Press, 196-207, 1959.
[47] The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian
Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India.
Cambridge University Press, 253-69, 1978.
[48] Strang, H, In Clive's Command: A Story of the
Fight for India. Indy Publication, 54-66, 1904.
ISSN: 2319-4421
credentials include twenty five research papers published
in indexed international journals and reference books.
Recently, his two research papers have been published in
reputed Social Sciences Journals of USA. To develop the
learning-teaching skills he has participated and presented
research papers in thirty seven National/International
Seminar/Conference. Apart from this, he has also authored
a book entitled “Primitive Tribes of India.” Dr. Meena is
also serving as NSS Programme Officer, Coordinator of
Community Development Cell, Deputy Chief Warden of
University
Hostels
and
Liaison
Officer
of
SC/ST/OBC/PWD. The sole motto of his working culture
is little work every day, adds up to big results.
Presently, Dr. Meena is working as Assistant Professor in
Dept. of History, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University
(Amarkantak, MP) since October, 2012. Earlier, he was
carrying out the same designation in Rajasthan University
(Jaipur).
ABOUT AUTHOR
Dr. Hareet Kumar Meena has obtained his various
academic degrees from Pilani and University of Rajasthan
(Jaipur). He did his graduation from Rajasthan University
and obtained his Doctoral degree (2011) from the same
prestigious and oldest institution of Rajasthan. He
qualified UGC-NET exam in Dec. 2006 and was granted
Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (Delhi University) to
carry out his research work. His field of specialization is
Modern India History and he actively engaged in teaching
PG & UG classes for more than eight years. He has keen
interest in Colonial economic infrastructure, tribal
resistance movements in 18th- 19th century and genesis of
revolutionary ideas in British period. His academic
i-Explore International Research Journal Consortium
www.irjcjournals.org
39