CG Board Class 9 Social Science Chapter 9 Solutions: The Industrial Revolution and Social Change (1750-1900) (औद्योगिक क्रांति और सामाजिक बदलाव) – 2026-27

• Answer:iv) England

i) Textiles /

iii) Minerals /

iv) Chemicals and Electricity /

• Answer:iv) Chemicals and Electricity

• Answer: – Similarities: Both systems produced goods for expanding international markets, involved monetary transactions, catered to mass consumer demand, and created employment beyond local subsistence needs.
• Differences: In proto-industrialisation, production was decentralized in rural homes using traditional hand tools owned by artisans, managed by town merchants. In factory production, manufacturing was centralized under one urban factory roof using power-driven machines owned by capitalists.

• Answer: Britain’s capital was invested by wealthy merchants who accumulated fortunes through international trade and colonial commerce, wealthy landowners who profited from the Agricultural Revolution, and commercial financial institutions like the Bank of England.

• Answer: Because Germany lacked a strong private capitalist class initially, capital was invested directly by the German State (Prussian government), supplemented by large joint-stock commercial banks and industrial alliances called cartels.

• Answer: – England: The British government followed a free trade (laissez-faire) policy, avoiding direct investment in factories and letting private capitalists drive industrial expansion while maintaining protective tariffs in early years.
• Germany: The German state played an active, interventionist role by directly building railways, funding technical universities, forming trade cartels, and implementing welfare schemes (State Socialism).
• India: Under British colonial rule, the state actively suppressed Indian industries to benefit British manufacturers, refusing protective tariffs to local mills and refusing to purchase Indian goods until World War I.

• Answer: The invention of coke-smelting by Abraham Darby produced strong, durable iron and steel. This cheap, high-quality steel was essential to construct heavy factory machinery, steam engines, steamships, tools, and durable railway tracks. It transformed industrialization from light cotton textiles into heavy industrial engineering.

• Answer: 1. Class Division: Divided society into two distinct classes: wealthy industrial capitalists and propertyless wage-earning workers.

1. Urbanization: Caused mass rural-to-urban migration, creating overcrowded industrial cities with filthy slums, poor sanitation, and epidemics.
2. Social Transformation: Altered family structures as women and children entered factory work under severe conditions, sparking organized labour movements, trade unions, and demands for voting rights.

• Answer: – Obstacles: Germany was fragmented into over 300 small states with separate currencies, internal trade tariffs, serfdom, lack of private capital, and strong competition from Britain’s established monopoly.
• Overcoming Steps: Prussia established the Zollverein economic union (1834) to abolish internal tariffs, unified Germany politically in 1871, abolished serfdom, invested state capital into heavy industries (chemicals, electricity, heavy machinery), and created industrial cartels and technical institutes.

• Answer: – Colonial Contribution: Colonies provided cheap raw materials (raw cotton, jute, rubber) to ruling nations and served as captive guaranteed markets to dump factory-manufactured goods.
• Obstacles in Colonies: Colonial rulers deliberately de-industrialized traditional crafts, refused to levy protective tariffs on imported foreign goods, provided no state capital for local factories, and restricted technical education.

• Answer: – Effect on Capitalists: Capitalists suffer heavy financial losses, their capital gets locked in unsold inventory, and they are forced to shut down production or go bankrupt.
• Effect on Workers: Capitalists cut costs by laying off workers, resulting in immediate unemployment, loss of cash wages, poverty, and food riots.

• Answer: – Impact on Workers: Technological changes reduce manual labour requirements, displacing skilled workers and causing unemployment or wage cuts (e.g., the introduction of spinning jennies displaced hand spinners).
• Impact on Consumers: Consumers benefit from new technology products because mass factory production makes high-quality goods cheap, widely available, and durable (e.g., affordable mill-made cotton clothes or electricity).

• Answer: Britain imposed high import tariffs on Indian textiles entering Britain while flooding the Indian market with cheap, machine-made Manchester cotton goods. Consequently, Indian weavers lost both their foreign export market and local domestic market. They could not obtain raw cotton due to heavy exports to England, leading to the collapse of the Indian handloom industry and mass poverty.

• Answer: The first Indian industrialists were Parsi and Marwari merchants like Dinshaw Petit, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, Seth Hukumchand, and G.D. Birla. They accumulated investment capital through lucrative international trade (exporting Indian raw cotton and opium to China and Britain) and inland trade/moneylending.

• Answer: Indian industrialists faced hostile colonial policies, including the lack of protective import tariffs against British goods, excise duties on local cloth, refusal of the British government to purchase Indian products, difficulty obtaining loans from British banks, and control of hiring by powerful jobbers.

• Answer: – Similarities: All three regions enacted factory laws to restrict child labour, limit daily working hours for women and children, and set safety guidelines.
• Differences: Germany went furthest by introducing state welfare schemes (old-age pensions, health/accident insurance, free primary education under State Socialism). Britain enacted Factory Acts reducing working hours to 10-12 hours after intense labor protests. In India, laws were passed late under colonial rule (fixing child work to 7 hours and men’s work to 12 hours in 1911) primarily to appease British industrialists who feared Indian mill competition.