{"id":90092,"date":"2025-06-01T10:20:38","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:20:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=90092"},"modified":"2025-06-01T10:20:38","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:20:38","slug":"consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/","title":{"rendered":"Consider the following statements:\n  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Consider the following statements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji argued that what was being drained out was \u2018potential surplus\u2019 that could generate more economic development in India if invested in India<\/li>\n<li>Statement-II: Imperialists believed that India was brought into the large capitalist world market and that was in itself a progress towards modernization<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements and the code?<\/p>\n<p>[amp_mcq option1=&#8221;Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I&#8221; option2=&#8221;Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is NOT the correct explanation of Statement I&#8221; option3=&#8221;Statement I is true but Statement II is false&#8221; option4=&#8221;Statement I is false but Statement II is true&#8221; correct=&#8221;option2&#8243;]<\/p>\n<div class=\"psc-box-pyq-exam-year-detail\">\n<div class=\"pyq-exam\">\n<div class=\"psc-heading\">This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n<div class=\"psc-title line-ellipsis\">UPSC CAPF &#8211; 2017<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pyq-exam-psc-buttons\"><a href=\"\/pyq\/pyq-upsc-capf-2017.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"psc-pdf-button\" rel=\"noopener\">Download PDF<\/a><a href=\"\/pyq-upsc-capf-2017\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"psc-attempt-button\" rel=\"noopener\">Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<section id=\"pyq-correct-answer\">Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his &#8216;Drain Theory&#8217;, argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a &#8216;potential surplus&#8217; or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule.<\/section>\n<section id=\"pyq-key-points\">Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.<\/section>\n<section id=\"pyq-additional-information\">Naoroji&#8217;s Drain Theory was a cornerstone of early Indian nationalist economic critique, highlighting the exploitative nature of colonial rule. Imperial narratives, conversely, often focused on the &#8216;benefits&#8217; of British rule, such as railways, telegraphs, and entry into global commerce, portraying them as signs of progress towards modernization.<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Consider the following statements: Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji argued that what was being drained out was \u2018potential surplus\u2019 that could generate more economic development in India if invested in India Statement-II: Imperialists believed that India was brought into the large capitalist world market and that was in itself a progress towards modernization Which one of the &#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more-container\"><a title=\"Consider the following statements:\n  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg\" class=\"read-more button\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/#more-90092\">Detailed Solution<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Consider the following statements:<br \/>\n  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1085],"tags":[1101,1264,1124],"class_list":["post-90092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-capf","tag-1101","tag-economic-impact-of-british-rule-on-india","tag-modern-history-of-india","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v22.2 (Yoast SEO v23.3) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Consider the following statements:  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his &#039;Drain Theory&#039;, argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a &#039;potential surplus&#039; or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule. Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consider the following statements:  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his &#039;Drain Theory&#039;, argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a &#039;potential surplus&#039; or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule. Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T10:20:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consider the following statements:  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg","description":"Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his 'Drain Theory', argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a 'potential surplus' or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule. Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consider the following statements:  Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg","og_description":"Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his 'Drain Theory', argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a 'potential surplus' or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule. Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T10:20:38+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/","name":"Consider the following statements: Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T10:20:38+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T10:20:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"Statement I is true; Dadabhai Naoroji, through his 'Drain Theory', argued that British rule resulted in the systematic drain of wealth from India, representing a 'potential surplus' or investible capital that, if retained and invested in India, could have fueled its industrial and economic development. Statement II is true; Imperialists and colonial apologists frequently argued that British rule brought India into contact with the global capitalist system, promoting trade, infrastructure, and a degree of institutional modernization, which they presented as inherently progressive. Both statements are individually true, reflecting distinct viewpoints (nationalist critique vs. imperialist justification). However, Statement II does not explain why Dadabhai Naoroji developed his argument in Statement I. They represent contrasting analyses of the impact of British rule. Dadabhai Naoroji critiqued the economic drain, while imperialists claimed modernization through integration into the world market; these are contrasting views, not cause and effect.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/consider-the-following-statements-statement-i-dadabhai-naoroji-arg\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CAPF","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-capf\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Consider the following statements: Statement-I: Dadabhai Naoroji arg"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}