2017 · Q6
Statement IDadabhai Naoroji argued that what was being drained out was 'potential surplus' that could generate more economic development in India if invested in India.
Statement IIImperialists believed that India was brought into the large capitalist world market and that was in itself a progress towards modernization.
history-of-indiafreedom-early
- ABoth the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I
- BBoth the statements are individually true but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation of Statement I
- CStatement I is true but Statement II is false
- DStatement I is false but Statement II is true
Explanation
Statement I is true: in Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1876) Dadabhai Naoroji argued that Britain was draining India’s wealth, including the potential surplus that, invested at home, could have financed India’s own economic development. Statement II is also true: imperialist apologists claimed that drawing India into the capitalist world market was itself a step toward modernisation. The two statements come from opposing schools and neither explains the other, so the answer is (B).