IGNOU MHI-09 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU MHI-09 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU MHI-09 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Critically analyse the non-modernist theories about the emergence of nation and nationalism.

Ans. The emergence of nation and nationalism is a subject of intense intellectual debate. Modernist theories, as propounded by scholars like Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson, view nationalism as a product of modernity, industrialization, capitalism, and print culture. In contrast, non-modernist theories argue that nations have deep roots in the pre-modern era and are not merely modern constructs. A critical analysis of these theories is as follows: Major Non-Modernist Theories: 1. Primordialism: This theory posits that national identity is based on primordial, natural, and given ties. According to scholars like Clifford Geertz, these bonds stem from blood, language, religion, and shared customs. These sentiments are considered irrational and powerful. Critique: The primary weakness of this theory is its neglect of the historical construction and fluidity of nations. It views nationalism as a static and unchanging entity, whereas history shows that national identities are formed, contested, and evolve over time. This theory fails to explain why some cultural groups become nations while others do not. 2. Perennialism: This is a softer version of primordialism. Perennialists believe that while not all nations are ancient, the phenomenon of nationalism has existed since the pre-modern era. Scholars like Adrian Hastings argue that elements of national consciousness existed in some medieval European kingdoms, based on a common vernacular, law, and history. They see modern nations as extensions of these older units. Critique: While perennialism acknowledges the importance of pre-modern identities, it does not fully account for the specific character of modern nationalism—its mass politics, demand for sovereignty, and standardized culture. It tends to downplay the significant differences between pre-modern and modern forms of nationalism. 3. Ethno-symbolism: This theory, most prominently associated with Anthony D. Smith, attempts to bridge the gap between modernist and non-modernist perspectives. Smith argues that modern nations are built upon pre-existing ethnic communities ( ethnies ). These ethnic communities are bound by shared myths, memories, symbols, and values. Modern nationalism revives, reinterprets, and mobilizes these older ethnic elements. Thus, a nation is a “daily plebiscite” as well as a historical legacy. Critique: Ethno-symbolism offers a more nuanced approach. However, critics argue that it places too much emphasis on the role of an “ethnic core.” Many successful nation-states, such as the USA or India, have been built from diverse ethnic groups rather than a single dominant ethnic core. The theory also does not fully explain how elites select and manipulate these symbols for political ends. Conclusion: Non-modernist theories make a significant contribution by explaining the emotional power of nationalism and its deep historical roots. They challenge the economic and structural determinism of modernist theories, which often overlook the role of culture, myths, and symbols. However, they are also limited, particularly in their failure to fully acknowledge the constructed and mutable nature of nationalism. A comprehensive understanding requires a synthesis of modernist and non-modernist approaches, recognizing that modern nationalism is constructed in modern conditions (like state-building, capitalism, and mass communication) using historically embedded cultural materials.

Q2. Write a note on the Swadeshi Movement.

Ans. The Swadeshi Movement (1905-1908) was a pivotal moment in the history of the Indian National Movement. It was not merely a political agitation but also deeply impacted the economic, social, and cultural spheres. Background: The immediate cause of the movement was the Partition of Bengal , announced by the British government in December 1903 and implemented on 16 October 1905. Officially, the reason cited for the partition was administrative convenience, but the real motive was to weaken Bengal, the nerve centre of nationalist activities, and to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims. Bengali nationalists saw it as a deliberate attack on their homeland. Spread and Methods of the Movement: Initially, the movement was led by Moderate leaders like Surendranath Banerjea and Krishna Kumar Mitra, who used methods like petitions, memorandums, and public meetings. However, when these methods failed, the leadership passed into the hands of Extremist leaders like Aurobindo Ghosh, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai. They advocated for new and more militant forms of struggle. The main programmes and methods of the Swadeshi Movement were:

• Boycott: This was the most important weapon of the movement. It involved the boycott of foreign goods, especially Manchester cloth and Liverpool salt. Students boycotted government schools and colleges, lawyers boycotted courts, and people boycotted government titles and jobs.
• Swadeshi: Alongside boycott, the use of Swadeshi or indigenous products was promoted. This gave a stimulus to Indian industries, particularly textile mills, soap and match factories, and banks. Acharya P.C. Ray’s ‘Bengal Chemicals’ factory is a prime example.
• National Education: Students left government educational institutions in large numbers. The National Council of Education (1906) was established in Bengal to set up an alternative Indian system of education. The Bengal National College (with Aurobindo Ghosh as its first principal) and many other national schools were opened.
• Volunteer Organisations (Samitis): For mass mobilization and to spread the message of the movement, numerous volunteer organisations, like Ashwini Kumar Dutt’s Swadesh Bandhab Samiti , were formed. These samitis organised mass meetings, promoted Swadeshi goods, and did social work.
• Cultural Impact: The movement created a surge of nationalist sentiment in literature, art, and music. Rabindranath Tagore, Rajanikanta Sen, and Mukunda Das wrote patriotic songs that became very popular. Tagore’s ‘Amar Sonar Bangla’ (which later became the national anthem of Bangladesh) was written during this time.

Weaknesses and Significance:

The movement remained largely confined to the urban middle class and students and failed to mobilize the peasantry on a large scale. Communal forces tried to keep Muslims away from the movement by portraying it as being against their interests. By 1908, the movement fizzled out due to severe government repression, the arrest of leaders, and the split in the Congress at Surat.

Despite its limitations, the Swadeshi Movement had a lasting impact on Indian nationalism. It was the first time that strategies like “passive resistance” and “non-cooperation” were successfully applied, which were later adopted by Gandhi. It promoted Indian industries and popularized the idea of self-reliance. Most importantly, it took the freedom struggle out of the confines of a few educated elites and brought it to the masses, making it a true mass movement.

Q3. Discuss the main characteristics of the Nehru Report. Describe the various forms of opposition to it.

Ans. The Nehru Report (1928) was a significant constitutional draft of the Indian National Movement, prepared in response to a challenge from the British government for Indians to produce a consensus-based constitution. In 1927, Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, challenged Indian leaders to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to all parties in India. Accepting this challenge, an All-Parties Conference was convened in February 1928, and a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru. The report submitted by this committee is known as the Nehru Report. Main Characteristics of the Nehru Report:

• Dominion Status: The report demanded full Dominion Status for India within the British Empire. This was short of the demand for complete independence but was a significant step for its time.
• Federal Structure: It proposed a federal form of government with a strong centre, but with autonomy for the provinces. The residuary powers were to be vested in the centre.
• Fundamental Rights: For the first time, the report presented a list of 19 Fundamental Rights for Indians, including freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the right to form associations.
• Secular State: The report proposed the establishment of a secular state, with no state religion and freedom of religion for all citizens.
• Joint Electorates: It recommended the abolition of the system of separate electorates and its replacement with joint electorates . However, it proposed reserving seats for Muslims in provinces where they were a minority. No reservation was proposed for Muslims at the Centre.
• Linguistic Provinces: The report recommended the formation of provinces on a linguistic basis.
• Adult Suffrage: It proposed universal adult suffrage for all men and women over the age of 21.

Opposition to the Nehru Report:

Although it was a progressive document, it faced strong opposition from various quarters:

1. Opposition from the Muslim League:

The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, rejected the report. Their main objections were:

• Opposition to the abolition of separate electorates.
• Demand for one-third reservation for Muslims in the Central Legislature, which the report had rejected.
• Demand for vesting residuary powers in the provinces instead of the centre.

In response to these objections, Jinnah presented his famous

“Fourteen Points”

in March 1929, which became the basis of the Muslim League’s politics in the future.

2. Opposition from within the Congress:

The younger and more radical faction of the Congress also opposed the report, but for a different reason. This group, led by Jawaharlal Nehru (son of Motilal Nehru) and Subhas Chandra Bose, considered the goal of Dominion Status to be inadequate. They demanded that

Complete Independence (Purna Swaraj)

be made the immediate goal of the Congress. Due to this pressure, a resolution was passed at the Calcutta session in December 1928, stating that if the government did not accept the Nehru Report within a year, the Congress would launch a mass movement for complete independence.

3. Opposition from other minority groups:

Sikh leaders also opposed any form of reservation in Punjab, as they felt it would reduce their political influence. Similarly, some non-Brahmin groups also expressed concerns over inadequate representation.

Conclusion:

The Nehru Report was the first major attempt by Indian leaders to draft a constitution. It was based on the principles of secularism, federalism, and fundamental rights, which later became the foundation of the Constitution of independent India. However, its failure to secure a broad consensus from various political groups highlighted the growing communal divide and generational rift in Indian politics. It set the stage for the demand for Purna Swaraj, which was declared at the Lahore session in 1929.

Q4. Examine the role of the Swaraj Party in the growth of Indian National Movement.

Ans. The Swaraj Party was formed at a time of disappointment and confusion among nationalists following the abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922. Led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, this party adopted a unique strategy and gave a new direction to the national movement. Formation and Ideology: The decision by Gandhiji to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri-Chaura incident was disagreed upon by many Congress leaders. They felt it was a mistake to halt the movement when it was at its peak. Subsequently, a debate arose within the Congress about the future strategy.

• No-changers: Leaders like C. Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Rajendra Prasad believed that the Congress should focus on constructive work and continue the boycott of elections to the legislative councils.
• Pro-changers or Swarajists: C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Vithalbhai Patel argued that boycotting the councils would leave them in the hands of reactionary elements. They proposed a new strategy: “Council Entry” . Their aim was to enter the councils either to mend them or to end them by obstructing from within.

When the proposal for council entry was defeated at the Gaya session (1922), C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru resigned from the Congress and established the

Congress-Khilafat Swaraj Party

on January 1, 1923.

Role of Swarajists in the Councils:

The Swaraj Party achieved impressive success in the 1923 elections. They won 42 out of 101 elected seats in the Central Legislative Assembly and secured a clear majority in the Central Provinces. Within the councils, they acted as a coherent nationalist bloc and fiercely opposed government policies.

• Constant Obstruction: They voted against the government’s repressive laws and budgets. They often exposed and paralyzed the system of Dyarchy under the 1919 Act by defeating government motions and passing their own resolutions.
• Raising National Issues: The Swarajists used the councils as a platform to raise issues like civil liberties, self-government, and repressive policies. Their speeches and debates were widely reported in newspapers, spreading political consciousness among the public.
• Demand for Constitutional Reforms: They consistently demanded more constitutional reforms, keeping the pressure on the government. In 1925, Vithalbhai Patel was elected as the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly, a major victory for the Swarajists.

Decline and Significance:

The sudden death of C.R. Das in 1925 was a severe blow to the Swaraj Party. Thereafter, the party fell prey to internal strife and the lure of office. Some leaders, like Motilal Nehru, joined government committees (like the Skeen Committee), which weakened their strategy of “constant obstruction.” Some leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya left the party in the name of protecting Hindu interests.

Despite these weaknesses, the role of the Swaraj Party was significant:

• Filling the Political Vacuum: They filled the political vacuum in the years following the Non-Cooperation Movement and kept the public’s enthusiasm alive.
• Exposing Dyarchy: They successfully exposed the hollow nature of the 1919 reforms by working from within the councils.
• Parliamentary Experience: They provided valuable parliamentary experience to future Indian leaders, which proved useful after independence.
• Complementing Gandhian Movements: Although their strategy was different from the Gandhian strategy, they maintained the pressure of the national movement and prepared the ground for future mass movements like the Civil Disobedience Movement.

In essence, the Swaraj Party sustained the momentum of the national movement during a difficult period and demonstrated an effective method of resisting colonialism through parliamentary strategy.

Q5. Trace the development of the Non-cooperation Movement. Analyse the role of the Khilafat Movement in it.

Ans. The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) was the first all-India mass movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. It fundamentally transformed the character of the Indian freedom struggle, changing it from a politics of the elite to a struggle of the common people. The Khilafat Movement played a catalytic role in the development of this movement. Development of the Non-Cooperation Movement: The background for this movement was prepared by several events:

• Post-World War I Disillusionment: During the war, India had supported the British Empire in the hope of getting self-government in return. But after the war, the government imposed repressive laws like the Rowlatt Act.
• The Rowlatt Act (1919): This act gave the government the power to imprison any person without trial. It was met with widespread opposition across the country.
• Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (April 13, 1919): The firing on a peaceful gathering in Amritsar on the orders of General Dyer shocked the entire nation. The Hunter Committee report, which tried to shield the guilty, further angered the Indians.

In response to these events, Gandhiji proposed the idea of “non-cooperation” with British rule. In September 1920, a special session of the Congress in Calcutta approved Gandhiji’s proposal for non-cooperation, and it was confirmed at the Nagpur session in December 1920.

Programme of the Movement:

The programme of non-cooperation was divided into two parts:

1. Negative Programme (Boycott):
   • Surrender of government titles and honours.
   • Boycott of government schools, colleges, courts, and legislative councils.
   • Boycott of foreign goods, especially cloth.
2. Positive or Constructive Programme:
   • Adoption of Swadeshi goods, especially Khadi.
   • Establishment of national schools and colleges (like Kashi Vidyapith, Gujarat Vidyapith).
   • Establishment of private panchayats to settle disputes.
   • Emphasis on Hindu-Muslim unity and the removal of untouchability.

The movement spread throughout the country. Students left schools and colleges, lawyers gave up their practice, and thousands returned their government titles. Bonfires of foreign cloth were lit, and Khadi became popular.

Role of the Khilafat Movement:

The Khilafat Movement arose from the defeat of Turkey in World War I. The Sultan of Turkey was considered the Caliph (religious head) of Sunni Muslims worldwide. After the war, the Allied powers dismembered the Turkish Empire and stripped the Caliph of his powers, which greatly angered Indian Muslims.

Under the leadership of the Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Ali), Maulana Azad, and Hakim Ajmal Khan, Indian Muslims formed the

All-India Khilafat Committee

to defend the rights of the Caliph.

Gandhiji saw the Khilafat issue as a golden opportunity to forge

Hindu-Muslim unity

and bring Muslims into the mainstream of the national movement. He joined hands with the Khilafat leaders and included the Khilafat question in the agenda of the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Analysis of the Merger of Khilafat and Non-Cooperation:

• Mass Mobilization: This merger provided the movement with an unprecedented mass base. Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder against British rule. It was the zenith of communal harmony in the history of Indian nationalism.
• Expansion of the Movement: The support of the Khilafat helped the Non-Cooperation Movement to penetrate deep into urban and rural areas. The Muslim ulema also supported the movement, increasing its reach even among orthodox Muslims.
• Critique: Some critics argue that Gandhiji made a mistake by bringing a religious and pan-Islamic issue into the national movement. This promoted religious identity in politics, which had long-term negative consequences. When Mustafa Kemal Pasha himself abolished the Caliphate in Turkey in 1924, the Khilafat issue became irrelevant and the basis of Hindu-Muslim unity crumbled, leading to increased communal tensions later on.

End of the Movement:

On February 5, 1922, at Chauri-Chaura in Uttar Pradesh, an angry mob set fire to a police station, killing 22 policemen. Pained by this violent incident, Gandhiji abruptly withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement on February 12, 1922.

Conclusion:

The Non-Cooperation Movement, together with the Khilafat Movement, was an epoch-making event for Indian nationalism. It shook the foundations of British rule and demonstrated that non-violent mass resistance could be a powerful weapon. Although it ended abruptly and the Hindu-Muslim unity proved short-lived, it instilled a sense of fearlessness and self-reliance in millions of Indians and prepared the stage for future struggles.

Q6. Describe the various forms of popular protests during 1945-46.

Ans. The period of 1945-46, between the end of World War II and the independence of India, was marked by unprecedented popular unrest and mass movements. Post-war economic hardships, the upsurge of nationalist sentiment, and the weakening of British rule combined to create an explosive situation. The various forms of popular protests during this period served as the final nail in the coffin of the British Raj. The major popular movements of this period were as follows: 1. Agitation for the Release of INA Prisoners (November 1945 – February 1946): The British government’s decision to try the soldiers of the Indian National Army (INA) , formed by Subhas Chandra Bose, at the Red Fort in Delhi sparked a wave of anger across the country. The joint trial of Colonel Shah Nawaz Khan (a Muslim), Colonel Prem Sahgal (a Hindu), and Colonel Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (a Sikh) was seen as a symbol of national unity. Widespread demonstrations took place across the country in protest. Strikes, processions, and demonstrations were held in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, and other cities, involving students, workers, and ordinary citizens. The slogan “Lal Qile se INA ko nikalo” (Release the INA from the Red Fort) resonated everywhere. All political parties, including the Congress, the Muslim League, and the Communist Party, demanded the release of the prisoners. Due to this unprecedented public pressure, the government was forced to commute the death sentences of the three officers. This movement showed that the spirit of nationalism had spread even within the British Indian Army. 2. The Royal Indian Navy (RIN) Mutiny (February 1946): This was the most dramatic uprising of the period. On February 18, 1946, ratings of the naval training ship HMIS Talwar in Bombay went on strike against racial discrimination and bad food. The mutiny quickly spread to other ships in Bombay and to naval bases in Karachi, Calcutta, and Madras. About 78 ships and 20,000 ratings participated. The ratings pulled down the Union Jack and hoisted the flags of the Congress, the Muslim League, and the Communist Party together, symbolizing their unity. The mutiny received tremendous support from the workers and common people of Bombay. Strikes occurred in the city, and violent clashes took place between protestors and British troops. The ratings surrendered after the intervention of Vallabhbhai Patel and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but the mutiny gave a clear message to the British rulers that they could no longer rely on the Indian armed forces to maintain their power. 3. Labour and Peasant Movements: The post-war period saw an unprecedented economic crisis, inflation, and unemployment, which led to a surge in labour and peasant movements.

• Labour Strikes: 1946 saw a flood of strikes across the country. Thousands of workers in the Post and Telegraph, South Indian Railways, and other industries went on strike for better wages and working conditions. There were over 1600 strikes in 1946, involving nearly 2 million workers.
• Peasant Movements: Several significant peasant uprisings also occurred during this period:
  • Tebhaga Movement (1946-47): In Bengal, sharecroppers ( bargadars ) demanded that they be given two-thirds of the crop ( tebhaga ) instead of the traditional half share. The movement was organized by the Kisan Sabha, led by the Communists.
  • Telangana Movement (1946-51): In the Telangana region of Hyderabad state, peasants launched an armed struggle against feudal landlords ( deshmukhs and jagirdars ) and the Nizam’s rule. It was one of the largest peasant guerrilla wars in India’s history.
  • Worli Revolt (1945-47): In Maharashtra, Worli tribal peasants revolted against the exploitation of landlords and moneylenders.

Conclusion:

These mass movements of 1945-46 shook the foundations of British imperialism. The INA agitation and the RIN mutiny made it clear that the main pillars of British rule—the army and the police—were now unreliable. The labour and peasant movements challenged the socio-economic order. All these protests combined to create a situation where it became impossible for the British to continue ruling India, thus accelerating the process of the transfer of power.

Q7. Analyse the Gandhian strategy of resistance against colonial state in India.

Ans. Mahatma Gandhi provided the Indian National Movement with a unique and powerful strategy, which was a new chapter in resistance against the colonial state. His strategy was not merely political but also encompassed moral, social, and economic dimensions. This strategy was based on the broad philosophy of Satyagraha , which literally means “insistence on truth” or “truth-force.” An analysis of the key elements of the Gandhian strategy of resistance is as follows: 1. Satyagraha and Ahimsa: The cornerstone of Gandhi’s strategy was Ahimsa (Non-violence) . This was not just the absence of physical violence, but the renunciation of hatred and malice in thought, word, and deed. Gandhi believed that non-violence was the weapon of the brave, not the cowardly. The objective of Satyagraha was not to destroy the enemy, but to awaken his heart and conscience and thereby convert him. It was a way of making the oppressor realize that he was committing an injustice. It was a moral struggle in which the opponent’s perspective was changed by self-suffering. 2. Methods of Struggle: Gandhi developed and employed various methods under Satyagraha:

• Non-Cooperation: This was based on the idea that no government can function without the cooperation of its subjects. If Indians voluntarily ceased to cooperate with British rule, it would collapse. This included the boycott of government titles, schools, courts, and jobs. The Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-22 was its largest manifestation.
• Civil Disobedience: This was a more aggressive form of non-cooperation. It involved deliberately breaking unjust laws, such as the salt law. The Salt Satyagraha and Dandi March of 1930 was a classic example of civil disobedience, which challenged the moral authority of British rule.
• Hartal and Boycott: Gandhi used the boycott of foreign goods and peaceful strikes (hartals) as effective tools to create economic pressure. The promotion of Swadeshi goods, especially Khadi, was the constructive aspect of boycott.

3. Constructive Programme:

For Gandhi, freedom did not just mean political independence but also social and economic liberation. He realized that mass movements could not always be active. Therefore, he emphasized the

Constructive Programme

to build the nation’s inner strength during periods of passivity. Its key elements were:

• Promoting Hindu-Muslim unity.
• Eradication of untouchability and upliftment of Harijans.
• Popularizing the spinning wheel (charkha) and Khadi to promote rural self-sufficiency.
• Promoting village sanitation, basic education, and adult education.

This programme was a way of organizing the masses, disciplining them, and preparing them internally for freedom.

4. Strategy of Struggle-Truce-Struggle (S-T-S):

Gandhi was a shrewd strategist. He knew that the energy and capacity for sacrifice of the masses were not limitless. Therefore, he adopted the strategy of

Struggle-Truce-Struggle

. After an active phase (Struggle), he would withdraw the movement (Truce). He used this truce period to reorganize his forces through constructive work, analyze weaknesses, and prepare for the next round of conflict (Struggle). The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22), the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34), and the Quit India Movement (1942) represent different phases of this strategy.

Analysis and Impact:

The greatest strength of the Gandhian strategy was that it transformed the Indian freedom struggle into a

mass movement

. It involved peasants, women, students, and all sections of society in the political process. It removed fear from the minds of Indians and instilled in them a sense of self-respect and fearlessness. The non-violent methods put the British government in a peculiar dilemma: if they repressed, their moral image suffered; if they did not, their authority was weakened.

However, it also had some limitations. Critics argue that the strict condition of non-violence sometimes halted the momentum of the movement, as happened with the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement after Chauri-Chaura. Furthermore, this strategy failed to completely solve the communal problem.

Despite these limitations, the Gandhian strategy proved uniquely effective against colonial rule. It morally defeated a mighty empire and won India a freedom that was based not on bloodshed and hatred, but on the ideals of peace and reconciliation.

Q8. Discuss the main strengths and weaknesses of the legacies of the Indian National Movement.

Ans. The Indian National Movement, which lasted for nearly a century, was not just a political struggle but also a social, economic, and intellectual churning. It laid the foundation for independent India and left behind a lasting legacy, which has its own distinct strengths and weaknesses. Main Strengths of the Legacy: 1. A Democratic, Secular, and Civil-Libertarian State: The most significant legacy of the national movement is the establishment of a modern, democratic, and secular political system. The leaders of the movement fought for values like universal adult franchise, parliamentary democracy, freedom of the press, and fundamental rights. These values were enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which has been a guiding force in sustaining democracy in a pluralistic society. 2. National Unity and Integration: The movement forged the very idea of “India” and united people of different languages, religions, and cultures under a shared national identity. It successfully integrated a vast and diverse country into a single nation-state, which is a monumental achievement in itself. 3. Tradition of Mass Participation: Under Gandhiji’s leadership, the freedom struggle transformed from an elite movement into a mass movement. It involved the common people, including peasants, workers, and women, in the political process. This participation laid the foundation for a vibrant political culture and grassroots democracy in India. 4. Agenda for Social Reform: The national movement raised its voice against caste discrimination, untouchability, women’s rights, and other social evils. Although it was an incomplete social revolution, it provided an agenda and a moral basis for future social reforms. 5. Self-reliant Economic Development and Non-Aligned Foreign Policy: The ideas of Swadeshi and self-reliance influenced India’s economic policy after independence. Similarly, the experience of anti-imperialism laid the foundation for an independent and non-aligned foreign policy, which enabled India to stay out of Cold War bloc politics and play an independent global role. Main Weaknesses of the Legacy: 1. Failure to Prevent Partition: The greatest failure of the national movement was its inability to prevent the partition of India. The Congress leadership failed to maintain Hindu-Muslim unity and effectively address the concerns raised by the Muslim League. Partition not only caused the death and displacement of millions but also sowed the seeds of permanent hostility between India and Pakistan. 2. Incomplete Social Revolution: Due to its focus on achieving political independence, the national movement was not entirely successful in bringing about revolutionary changes in social structures. Caste hierarchies, patriarchy, and class inequalities largely persisted even after independence. The movement’s leadership, especially the Congress, often tried to balance the interests of conflicting classes like zamindars and peasants, which hampered radical social reform. 3. Transfer of Power, Not Seizure of Power: Some critics, such as leftist historians, argue that India’s independence was a “transfer of power” by compromise from the British rather than a seizure of power through a real revolution. This meant that the colonial administrative, judicial, and police structures remained largely intact, which hindered a revolutionary transformation of the character of the state. 4. Incomplete Resolution of Regional and Ethnic Aspirations: While the movement created a pan-Indian identity, it could not always fully accommodate the aspirations of various regional, linguistic, and ethnic groups. This led to issues like the demand for linguistic states and secessionist tendencies in some regions after independence. Conclusion: The legacy of the Indian National Movement is a mixed bag. It provided India with a strong democratic and secular framework, but it could not prevent the tragedy of Partition and was incomplete in bringing about a true social revolution. Understanding these strengths and weaknesses is crucial to understanding the politics, society, and challenges of contemporary India.

Q9. Write a note on the association of the Indian National Movement with the peasantry.

Ans. The relationship between the Indian National Movement and the peasantry was complex and evolving. The national movement, which began as an urban, middle-class phenomenon, gradually brought the peasantry into its fold, who eventually became the main base of its strength. However, this relationship was marked by cooperation as well as tension and contradiction. Early Phase (1885-1915): In its initial phase, the Indian National Congress was led by Moderate leaders who were primarily from the educated urban elite. Their main concerns were related to constitutional reforms, Indian participation in administrative jobs, and civil rights. While they were aware of the peasants’ problems, such as excessive rent, debt, and zamindari exploitation, they did not launch any major agitations on these issues. Their strategy was limited to petitions and memorandums. During this period, peasant revolts (like the Deccan riots) did occur, but they were localized and not directly linked to the national movement. The Gandhian Era and Peasant Inclusion (1917-1947): This situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian political scene. Gandhi realized that no national movement could succeed without involving the vast peasant population.

• Early Peasant Satyagrahas: Gandhi tested his strategy by leading the struggles of indigo farmers in Champaran (1917) , peasants demanding tax remission due to crop failure in Kheda (1918) , and mill workers in Ahmedabad (1918) . These successes made him the undisputed leader of the peasants.
• Peasants in Mass Movements: The peasantry participated on a massive scale in the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) and the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34) . They refused to pay rent (‘no-rent’ campaigns), protested against the chowkidari tax, and broke forest laws. The peasants became the backbone of these movements. The Bardoli Satyagraha (1928), led by Vallabhbhai Patel, was a classic example of peasant mobilization under Congress leadership.

Tensions between Congress and the Peasantry:

Despite mobilizing the peasants, the Congress’s relationship with the peasantry was not always smooth.

• Balancing Class Interests: The Congress was a multi-class organization, which also included landlords and rich peasants. Therefore, it often tried to strike a balance between the interests of peasants and landlords. For this reason, Congress often refrained from supporting “no-rent” campaigns, which directly challenged the interests of the zamindars, and instead focused on “no-revenue” campaigns, which targeted the government.
• Control over Peasant Movements: The Congress leadership wanted peasant movements to remain within its broader strategy and the principles of non-violence. Whenever peasant movements became more militant or revolutionary (like the Kisan Sabha movement in the United Provinces), the Congress leadership became uncomfortable and tried to control them.

Rise of Independent Peasant Movements:

Due to these limitations of the Congress, independent peasant organizations emerged in the 1920s and 1930s. Leftist and socialist leaders like N.G. Ranga, Swami Sahajanand Saraswati, and E.M.S. Namboodiripad organized the peasants on their class issues. In 1936, the

All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS)

was established. The Kisan Sabha demanded radical reforms like the abolition of the zamindari system and debt relief.

The AIKS often worked in conjunction with the Congress, but it maintained its independent identity and put pressure on the Congress for the specific interests of the peasants. The Congress’s Agrarian Programme at Faizpur (1936) was a result of this pressure.

Conclusion:

The relationship between the Indian National Movement and the peasantry was a symbiotic but tense one. The national movement gave the peasants a platform and a voice against colonial exploitation. In return, the peasants provided the movement with the mass base that made it invincible. However, the multi-class character of the Congress prevented it from supporting all the radical demands of the peasants, leading to the rise of independent peasant movements. Ultimately, it was the peasantry that gave the freedom struggle its real strength and legitimacy.

Q10. Write short notes on any two of the following in about 250 words each : (a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition (b) Poona Pact, 1932 (c) The Revolutionaries (d) Relationship between the Congress and the Muslims

Ans. (a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition Why the Indian National Congress, which had fought for the unity of India for decades, finally accepted the partition of the country in 1947 is a complex question. There were several immediate and long-term reasons behind it. First, large-scale communal violence was a major factor. The horrific riots in Calcutta following the Muslim League’s “Direct Action Day” call in 1946, and the subsequent violence that spread to Noakhali, Bihar, and Punjab, shook the Congress leaders. They realized that any attempt to prevent partition could lead to a devastating civil war, in which millions would die. Leaders like Patel believed it was better to “cut off a part of the body to save the rest.” Second, the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) had made partition almost inevitable. The plan had proposed a three-tiered federal structure with a weak centre and strong provinces. Both the Congress and the Muslim League interpreted the plan differently, and it ultimately failed. After this, no viable alternative was left that could keep India united. Third, the role of the British government was also significant. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, convinced the Congress leaders that partition was the only way to achieve a quick and peaceful transfer of power. The “Balkan Plan” and then the “3rd June Plan” (Mountbatten Plan) tied the process of partition to a fixed timeline, leaving no opportunity for reconsideration. Finally, the top Congress leaders, especially Nehru and Patel, were eager for a quick transfer of power and were tired after years of struggle. They felt that a divided but strong and united India was better than a weak, fragmented, and constantly strife-torn India as proposed in the Cabinet Mission Plan. Thus, partition was accepted as a tragic but necessary evil. (b) Poona Pact, 1932 The Poona Pact was a significant agreement reached between Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalit leader Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in September 1932. Its background was the Communal Award announced by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. The Communal Award provided for separate electorates for various minorities. The most controversial provision was the establishment of a separate electorate for the Dalits (then called ‘Depressed Classes’). This meant that Dalit voters would vote only for Dalit candidates. Gandhiji vehemently opposed this. He believed it would permanently divide Hindu society and weaken the efforts to eradicate untouchability. He began a fast unto death in Yerwada Jail in Poona against this decision. Gandhiji’s fast sent a wave of anxiety across the country, and immense pressure was put on Dr. Ambedkar to save his life. Ambedkar, who considered separate electorates essential to secure political rights and representation for the Dalits, was in a difficult position. After lengthy negotiations, an agreement was reached between Gandhi and Ambedkar (on behalf of the Dalits) on September 24, 1932, known as the Poona Pact. The main terms of the agreement were:

• The separate electorate for the Depressed Classes was abolished, and the system of joint electorate was retained.
• The number of seats reserved for Dalits in the provincial legislatures was increased from 71 (as proposed in the Communal Award) to 148 .
• In the Central Legislature, 18% of the total seats were also reserved for the Depressed Classes.

Thus, the Poona Pact saved Gandhiji’s life and prevented the division of Hindu society, while also ensuring adequate political representation for the Dalits.

(c) The Revolutionaries

In the Indian freedom struggle, parallel to the Gandhian non-violent movement, a significant stream of revolutionaries was also active, seeking to overthrow British rule through armed struggle. These revolutionaries believed that freedom could only be achieved through the use of force. The Indian revolutionary movement can be broadly divided into two phases.

First Phase (1900-1918):

This phase became particularly active after the Partition of Bengal. Secret societies like the

Anushilan Samiti

and

Jugantar

were formed in Bengal. Their aim was to organize youth through gymnasiums and train them in bomb-making and the use of weapons. The strategy of this phase was mainly focused on the individual assassination of unpopular British officials and political dacoities (to collect funds). Khudiram Bose, Prafulla Chaki, and Madan Lal Dhingra were prominent revolutionaries of this phase. Abroad, Shyamji Krishna Varma and V.D. Savarkar (in London) and the Ghadar Party (in America) also promoted revolutionary activities.

Second Phase (1920s):

The second phase of revolutionary activities began after the failure of the Non-Cooperation Movement. The revolutionaries of this phase were influenced by the ideas of socialism and Marxism. Their goal was not just political freedom but also the establishment of a socialist society. In 1924, Ramprasad Bismil, Jogesh Chatterjee, and Sachindranath Sanyal founded the

Hindustan Republican Association (HRA)

. The Kakori train robbery (1925) was carried out by this organization. Later, under the leadership of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, and Chandrashekhar Azad, the HRA was renamed the

Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA)

. These revolutionaries moved beyond individual assassinations and emphasized symbolic actions to ‘make the deaf hear,’ such as throwing a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi (1929). The raid on the Chittagong Armoury (1930) led by Surya Sen was also a daring event of this phase.

Although the revolutionary movement did not succeed in overthrowing the British Raj, their sacrifices inspired millions of Indians and intensified the spirit of nationalism.

(d) Relationship between the Congress and the Muslims

The relationship between the Indian National Congress and the Muslims was complex and fluctuating throughout the freedom struggle. It is a story of cooperation, misunderstanding, and eventual conflict.

Early Phase (1885-1905):

At its inception in 1885, the Congress claimed to represent all Indians. Some prominent Muslim leaders like Badruddin Tyabji joined it. However, influential Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan advised Muslims to stay away from the Congress, fearing that Muslim interests would not be safe in a Hindu-majority Congress.

Period of Cooperation (1916-1922):

The

Lucknow Pact

of 1916 was a high point of cooperation between the Congress and the Muslim League. In it, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims, and both organizations jointly demanded constitutional reforms from the government. The peak of this cooperation was seen during the

Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22)

, when Gandhiji demonstrated unprecedented Hindu-Muslim unity by linking the Khilafat issue with the national movement.

Growing Distances (1922-1937):

After the end of the Khilafat movement, this unity disintegrated. A series of communal riots occurred in the 1920s. The

Nehru Report (1928)

, which rejected separate electorates, further alienated the Muslim League, in response to which Jinnah presented his “Fourteen Points.”

Final Confrontation (1937-1947):

The massive victory of the Congress in the 1937 provincial elections was a turning point. Congress refused to form coalition governments with the Muslim League, which reinforced the perception among League leaders that there was no political future for Muslims in an independent India. Thereafter, the Muslim League rapidly pushed forward the demand for a separate Muslim nation, Pakistan. The Congress leaders failed to grasp the scale of this demand and its growing support among the Muslim masses. After the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) and large-scale communal violence, the relationship completely broke down, culminating in the tragic partition of the country.