Statement I : Dadabhai Naoroji argued that what was being drained out was potential surplus that could generate more economic development in India if invested in India Statement I : Imperialists believed that India was brought into the large capitalist wo

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 6 (CAPF/2017)

Statement I : Dadabhai Naoroji argued that what was being drained out was ‘potential surplus’ that could generate more economic development in India if invested in India
Statement I : Imperialists believed that India was brought into the large capitalist world market and that was in itself a progress towards modernization

question_subject: 

History

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,28,34,26,28,6,2

keywords: 

{'dadabhai naoroji': [1, 1, 1, 1], 'imperialists': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'more economic development': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'large capitalist world market': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'modernization': [0, 0, 1, 2], 'potential surplus': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'india': [8, 1, 7, 13]}

Option 2 is the correct answer. Statement I is true as Dadabhai Naoroji did argue that the economic drain from India was taking away the potential surplus that could be used for further economic development in India. However, Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I. The imperialists believed that bringing India into the capitalist world market was a form of progress towards modernization. While both statements are individually true, there is no direct causal link or explanation between the two. Naoroji`s argument about potential surplus and economic development in India does not necessarily align with the imperialists` belief in India`s progress through participation in the capitalist world market. Therefore, Statement II cannot be used as an explanation of Statement I.

Practice this on app