Do you think that new economic reforms of British rule have disrupted the old economic system of India ? Substantiate your answer with suitable examples. (Answer in 350 words)

- Do you think that new economic reforms of British rule have disrupted the old economic system of India ? Substantiate your answer with suitable examples. (Answer in 350 words)
Introduction
Colonial economic policy did disrupt the older order, and decisively; the qualification is that it dismantled without replacing, which is why disruption did not become industrial transformation.
Body
1. What the old order rested on: Village agriculture joined to hereditary artisan production, exchanged through jajmani obligation rather than the market, with land held by lineage and community while the state took a share of the produce and not the soil. Handicraft, above all textile, produced for a wide export market from Bengal, Coromandel and Gujarat, and Indian merchant capital and the hundi financed it.
2. What colonial rule changed: The Permanent Settlement of 1793, and the ryotwari and mahalwari settlements after it, made land private, saleable and mortgageable and fixed revenue in cash. Tariff policy admitted British machine cloth cheaply while Indian goods met duties in Britain; railways from 1853 were laid to carry raw material to ports; cultivation was commercialised into indigo, opium, cotton, jute and tea; and Dadabhai Naoroji and R. C. Dutt described the drain of wealth through home charges.
3. How far this disrupted the old order: Deindustrialisation ruined the weaver and pushed artisans back on to land, so the share of the population dependent on agriculture rose through the nineteenth century. Cash revenue and mortgageable title produced the moneylender-landlord, land alienation, and risings such as the Deccan riots of 1875, which forced the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Jajmani gave way to cash. Famine became recurrent, from the late-nineteenth-century famines to Bengal in 1943. A. R. Desai showed the new classes this economy created: zamindars, moneylenders, a commercial bourgeoisie, an English-educated middle class and a mill proletariat in Bombay and Calcutta. Against this, Indian capital did grow, in Ahmedabad's mills and Tata's Jamshedpur in 1907.
4. My position, with its qualifications: The old system was broken, but by subordination rather than by modernisation. The pre-colonial economy was not static, and colonial rule did generate new towns, classes and industries; what it did not do was replace what it destroyed. That is why disruption produced impoverishment instead of an industrial revolution.
Conclusion
The classes that emerged from the wreckage became the social base of the national movement.