Vidya Sanskaar International Public School

(Affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education)

Machohalli Gate, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-91
Chapter 2- Nationalism in India
Case Based Questions - 2024

1. SOURCE A

‘It is said of “passive resistance” that it is the weapon of the weak, but the power which is the subject of this article
can be used only by the strong. This power is not passive resistance; indeed it calls for intense activity. The
movement in South Africa was not passive but active … ‘ Satyagraha is not a physical force. A satyagrahi does not
inflict pain on the adversary; he does not seek his destruction … In the use of satyagraha, there is no ill-will
whatever. ‘ Satyagraha is pure soul-force. Truth is the very substance of the soul. That is why this force is called
satyagraha. The soul is informed with knowledge. In it burns the flame of love. … Nonviolence is the supreme
dharma … ‘It is certain that India cannot rival Britain or Europe in terms of arms. The British worship the war-god
and they can all of them become, as they are becoming, bearers of arms. The hundreds of millions in India can
never carry arms. They have made the religion of non-violence their own ...’

Solution

2. SOURCE - B

On 6 January 1921, the police in the United Provinces fired at peasants near Rae Bareli. Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to
go to the place of firing, but was stopped by the police. Agitated and angry, Nehru addressed the peasants who
gathered around him. This is how he later described the meeting: ‘They behaved as brave men, calm and unruffled
in the face of danger. I do not know how they felt but I know what my feelings were. For a moment my blood was
up, non-violence was almost forgotten – but for a moment only. The thought of the great leader, who by God’s
goodness has been sent to lead us to victory, came to me, and I saw the kisans seated and standing near me, less
excited, more peaceful than I was – and the moment of weakness passed, I spoke to them in all humility on
non-violence – I needed the lesson more than they – and they heeded me and peacefully dispersed.’ Quoted in
Sarvapalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography, Vol. I

1. Where did the police firing on peasants take place on 6 January 1921?
Answer: The police firing took place near Rae Bareli in the United Provinces.
2. How did the peasants behave during the incident, according to Jawaharlal Nehru?
Answer: The peasants behaved bravely, remaining calm and unruffled in the face of danger.
2 Marks Questions

1. What does this incident reveal about Jawaharlal Nehru's commitment to non-violence?
Answer: The incident shows that while Nehru initially felt anger and almost forgot non-violence, he quickly
regained composure by remembering Mahatma Gandhi's teachings. He not only overcame his moment of weakness
but was also inspired by the peasants and dispersed peacefully, demonstrating his commitment to Gandhian
principles.

2. How does this account highlight the role of leadership in maintaining non-violence during protests?
Answer: Nehru’s ability to control his emotions and advocate for non-violence despite his agitation reflects the
importance of strong leadership in guiding movements. His humility and acknowledgment of the peasants' calmness
show how effective leaders draw strength from their followers and inspire peaceful action even in challenging
situations.
3. SOURCE - C

The Independence Day Pledge, 26 January 1930 ‘We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of
any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they
may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and
oppresses them, the people have a further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British Government in India has not
only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has
ruined India economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the
British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence.’

1 Mark Questions

1. What was the primary demand of the Independence Day Pledge taken on 26 January 1930?
Answer: The primary demand was Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence for India.

2. According to the pledge, what gives people the right to alter or abolish a government?
Answer: People have the right to alter or abolish a government if it deprives them of their freedom and oppresses
them.

2 Marks Questions

1. How did the pledge describe the impact of British rule on India?
Answer: The pledge described British rule as exploitative, depriving Indians of their freedom and ruining the
country economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.

2. What values and principles underpin the Independence Day Pledge of 1930?
Answer: The pledge is underpinned by principles of justice, freedom, and self-determination. It emphasizes the
inalienable rights of people to enjoy the fruits of their labor and have opportunities for growth, asserting that
oppressive governance must be opposed to ensure these rights.

4. SOURCE D

Quit India Movement The failure of the Cripps Mission and the effects of World War II created widespread
discontentment in India. This led Gandhi to launch a movement calling for complete withdrawal of the British from
India. The Congress Working Committee, in its meeting in Wardha on 14 July 1942, passed the historic ‘Quit India’
resolution demanding the immediate transfer of power to Indians and quit India. On 8 August 1942 in Bombay, the
All India Congress Committee endorsed the resolution which called for a non-violent mass struggle on the widest
possible scale throughout the country. It was on this occasion that Gandhiji delivered the famous ‘Do or Die’
speech. The call for ‘Quit India’ almost brought the state machinery to a standstill in large parts of the country as
people voluntarily threw themselves into the thick of the movement. People observed hartals, and demonstrations
and processions were accompanied by national songs and slogans. The movement was truly a mass movement
which brought into its ambit thousands of ordinary people, namely students, workers and peasants. It also saw the
active participation of leaders, namely, Jayprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali and Ram Manohar Lohia and many
women such as Matangini Hazra in Bengal, Kanaklata Barua in Assam and Rama Devi in Odisha. The British
responded with much force, yet it took more than a year to suppress the movement.

1 Mark Questions

1. When was the Quit India resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee?
Answer: The Quit India resolution was passed on 14 July 1942 at Wardha.

2. What was the slogan given by Gandhiji during the Quit India Movement?
Answer: The slogan was “Do or Die.”

2 Marks Questions

1. Why did Gandhi launch the Quit India Movement in 1942?

Answer: Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement due to the failure of the Cripps Mission and widespread
discontentment caused by World War II. It aimed at the complete withdrawal of British rule and the immediate
transfer of power to Indians.

2. How was the Quit India Movement a mass movement, and who participated in it?
Answer: The Quit India Movement became a mass movement as it involved thousands of ordinary people,
including students, workers, and peasants, who participated through hartals, demonstrations, and processions.
Prominent leaders such as Jayprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali, and Ram Manohar Lohia, as well as women like
Matangini Hazra, Kanaklata Barua, and Rama Devi, actively contributed to the movement.

5. SOURCE E
‘To the altar of this revolution we have brought our youth as incense’ Many nationalists thought that the struggle
against the British could not be won through non-violence. In 1928, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army
(HSRA) was founded at a meeting in Ferozeshah Kotla ground in Delhi. Amongst its leaders were Bhagat Singh,
Jatin Das and Ajoy Ghosh. In a series of dramatic actions in different parts of India, the HSRA targeted some of
the symbols of British power. In April 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeswar Dutta threw a bomb in the Legislative
Assembly. In the same year there was an attempt to blow up the train that Lord Irwin was travelling in. Bhagat
Singh was 23 when he was tried and executed by the colonial government. During his trial, Bhagat Singh stated that
he did not wish to glorify ‘the cult of the bomb and pistol’ but wanted a revolution in society: ‘Revolution is the
inalienable right of mankind. Freedom is the imprescriptible birthright of all. The labourer is the real sustainer of
society … To the altar of this revolution we have brought our youth as incense, for no sacrifice is too great for so
magnificent a cause. We are content. We await the advent of revolution. Inquilab Zindabad!’
1 Mark Questions

1. Where and when was the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA) founded?
Answer: The HSRA was founded in 1928 at Ferozeshah Kotla ground in Delhi.

2. What slogan did Bhagat Singh and his comrades popularize during their revolutionary activities?
Answer: Bhagat Singh and his comrades popularized the slogan "Inquilab Zindabad" (Long Live the
Revolution).

2 Marks Questions

1. How did the HSRA oppose British colonial rule, and what were some of its key actions?
Answer: The HSRA opposed British colonial rule through dramatic revolutionary actions targeting symbols of
British power. Key actions included throwing a bomb in the Legislative Assembly by Bhagat Singh and Batukeswar
Dutta in April 1929 and attempting to blow up a train carrying Lord Irwin. These acts were aimed at inspiring
revolution rather than causing mass harm.

2. What was Bhagat Singh’s vision of revolution, and how did he justify his actions?
Answer: Bhagat Singh envisioned revolution as the inalienable right of mankind and emphasized the laborer’s role
as the sustainer of society. He rejected the glorification of violence, stating that his goal was societal transformation.
For him, sacrificing youth for the cause of revolution was a noble act, as no sacrifice was too great for achieving
freedom and justice.

6. SOURCE F
In 1930, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, as president of the Muslim League, reiterated the importance of separate electorates
for the Muslims as an important safeguard for their minority political interests. His statement is supposed to have
provided the intellectual justification for the Pakistan demand that came up in subsequent years. This is what he
said: ‘I have no hesitation in declaring that if the principle that the Indian Muslim is entitled to full and free
development on the lines of his own culture and tradition in his own Indian home-lands is recognised as the basis of
a permanent communal settlement, he will be ready to stake his all for the freedom of India. The principle that each
group is entitled to free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling of narrow communalism … A
community which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and ignoble. I entertain the
highest respect for the customs, laws, religions and social institutions of other communities. Nay, it is my duty
according to the teachings of the Quran, even to defend their places of worship, if need be. Yet I love the communal
group which is the source of life and behaviour and which has formed me what I am by giving me its religion, its
literature, its thought, its culture and thereby its whole past as a living operative factor in my present consciousness
… ‘Communalism in its higher aspect, then, is indispensable to the formation of a harmonious whole in a country
like India. The units of Indian society are not territorial as in European countries … The principle of European
democracy cannot be applied to India without recognising the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for
the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore, perfectly justified… ‘The Hindu thinks that separate
electorates are contrary to the spirit of true nationalism, because he understands the word “nation” to mean a kind
of universal amalgamation in which no communal entity ought to retain its private individuality. Such a state of
things, however, does not exist. India is a land of racial and religious variety. Add to this the general economic
inferiority of the Muslims, their enormous debt, especially in the Punjab, and their insufficient majorities in some of
the provinces, as at present constituted and you will begin to see clearly the meaning of our anxiety to retain a
separate electorate.
One-Mark Questions

1. Who delivered the speech advocating for the creation of a "Muslim India within India" in 1930?
Ans. Sir Muhammad Iqbal

2. What does Iqbal cite as the basis for a permanent communal settlement in India
Ans. The recognition of the Indian Muslim's right to full and free development on the lines of their own culture
and tradition.

Two-Mark Questions

1. Why did Iqbal justify the demand for separate electorates for Muslims in India?
Ans. Iqbal argued that India's societal structure was based on communal groups rather than territorial units, as in
Europe. He believed that separate electorates were essential to ensure the free development of Muslims, considering
their cultural and economic circumstances, such as their general economic inferiority and insufficient majorities in
several provinces.

2. How did Iqbal view the concept of communalism in the context of Indian society?
Ans. Iqbal saw communalism in its higher aspect as vital for the formation of a harmonious society in India. He
emphasized that respecting communal identities, traditions, and cultures was essential in a country with diverse
racial and religious communities.
3. Do you agree with Iqbal's idea of communalism? Can you define communalism in a different way?
Ans (i) No, I do not agree with Iqbal’s notion of communalism. He thought that it was the search for a community
to develop along its own lines. He felt that religion is the basis on which the thought process is based. He felt that
religion binds people in one thread. It gives people a unified culture and literature. In his opinion, Hindus and
Muslims should live as separate entities in the country. This line of thought supported separatism and subsequently
led to the partition of the country.