Economically, one of the results of the British rule in India in the 19th century was the

Gives a general pattern: 19th-century collapse of Indian handicrafts caused by competition from cheaper British manufactures and free-trade policies plus high import duties in Europe that closed markets.

A student could combine this with trade-route and market-demand facts (e.g., where European markets were and when they mattered) to infer whether handicraft exports would plausibly rise or fall.

States British policy imposed heavy duties on Indian textiles into Britain while allowing British goods into India, and explicitly says India's textile exports fell sharply in the 19th century.

One could compare export volumes/ports (basic external trade statistics or maps of trading links) to judge whether handicraft exports could have increased despite this policy.

Describes the dramatic rise of British cotton goods imports into India (Manchester goods) and notes the collapse of both export and domestic markets for Indian weavers.

Using knowledge of industrial output growth in Britain and timeline (e.g., Industrial Revolution → mechanised exports), a student can assess likelihood of increased handicraft exports from India.

Notes that Britain maintained high duties on several categories of Indian goods so their export to Britain 'virtually ceased'—a rule-like example of trade barriers limiting exports.

A student could check which handicraft items faced duties and whether alternative markets (non-British Europe, colonial markets) existed geographically to absorb exports.

Provides a qualifying pattern: textile exports did not initially decline after 1760s because British industry had not yet expanded, implying exports can change over time with industrial development.

A student might use this temporal pattern plus dates of British industrial expansion to judge if handicraft exports could have increased in early vs. later 19th century.

Gives an example of British settlements (Madras, Bombay, Calcutta) becoming nuclei of flourishing cities with large populations by the mid‑18th century.

A student could map the growth of these port/administrative towns and compare their population trajectories in the 19th century to other towns to see if British rule concentrated urban growth in these centres.

Describes deindustrialisation under British rule and increased dependence on agriculture, implying reduced urban artisan employment (a potential constraint on urban growth).

One could combine this with occupational census data (towns' industrial employment) to test if urban artisan jobs fell and whether that limited urban population growth.

Notes extreme poverty and a series of famines in the second half of the 19th century — a strong 'push' factor from rural areas that could drive migration to towns.

A student could compare timing and locations of famines with urban population increases (from census returns) to see if famine years coincide with rural→urban migration spikes.

Presents measured periods of urban growth showing relatively faster urban growth in 1931–1961 and rapid growth after 1961, indicating major urbanisation acceleration occurred in the 20th century.

Use historical census percentages (19th vs 20th century) to judge whether the 'rapid increase' primarily occurred during British 19th‑century rule or later.

Explains how level of urbanisation is measured and states total urban population increased eleven‑fold during the twentieth century, emphasizing 20th‑century expansion.

A student could quantify 19th‑century urban growth vs 20th‑century growth using this measurement concept to assess if the 19th century saw a 'rapid' increase.