Nationalism in IndiaClass 10 History NCERT Solutions
8 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 8
Q1Discuss
List all the different social groups which joined the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921. Then choose any three and write about their hopes and struggles to show why they joined the movement.
Solution
The different social groups that joined the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921 included:
- The middle class in towns (students, teachers, headmasters, lawyers)
- Peasants in the countryside (like the peasants of Awadh)
- Tribal people (like the peasants in the Gudem Hills of Andhra Pradesh)
- Plantation workers (in Assam)
- Merchants and traders
Here are the hopes and struggles of three of these groups:
-
The Middle Class in Towns:
- Hopes: The middle class hoped that by boycotting British institutions and goods, they could put pressure on the colonial government to grant Swaraj. They envisioned Swaraj as a state where Indians would have a greater role in the administration and governance of their own country.
- Struggles: Their participation involved significant personal sacrifice. Students left government-controlled schools and colleges, teachers resigned, and lawyers gave up their legal practices. They boycotted foreign goods, which had a dramatic effect on imports. However, the movement slowed down in the cities because of a lack of alternative Indian institutions. Khadi cloth was expensive, so the poor could not afford it, and students and professionals eventually had to return to government institutions to earn a livelihood.
-
Peasants in Awadh:
- Hopes: For the peasants of Awadh, led by Baba Ramchandra, the call for Swaraj was an opportunity to end the oppression they faced from talukdars and landlords. They hoped for a reduction of revenue, the abolition of
begar(forced labour without payment), and the social boycott of oppressive landlords. Some even believed that Gandhi Raj would mean that no taxes would have to be paid and land would be redistributed among the poor. - Struggles: Their struggle was against the exorbitant rents, cesses, and
begardemanded by landlords. As tenants, they had no security of tenure. Their participation in the movement took a violent turn as they attacked the houses of talukdars and merchants and looted bazaars. This form of struggle was not in line with the non-violent principles of the Congress, which made the Congress leadership unhappy.
- Hopes: For the peasants of Awadh, led by Baba Ramchandra, the call for Swaraj was an opportunity to end the oppression they faced from talukdars and landlords. They hoped for a reduction of revenue, the abolition of
-
Plantation Workers in Assam:
- Hopes: For plantation workers, Swaraj had a very specific meaning: freedom. Under the Inland Emigration Act of 1859, they were not permitted to leave the tea gardens without permission. They hoped that the coming of 'Gandhi Raj' would mean they could move freely in and out of the plantations and retain a link with their home villages. They believed everyone would be given land in their own villages.
- Struggles: Their struggle was against the confinement and exploitation of the plantation system. When they heard of the Non-Cooperation Movement, thousands of workers defied the authorities, left the plantations, and headed home. However, they never reached their destination. They were stranded on the way due to a railway and steamer strike, and were caught by the police and brutally beaten up.
Q2Discuss
Discuss the Salt March to make clear why it was an effective symbol of resistance against colonialism.
Solution
The Salt March was an effective symbol of resistance against colonialism for several reasons:
-
A Unifying Symbol: Salt was an everyday item consumed by everyone, both rich and poor. The government's monopoly over its production and the tax on it affected every single Indian. Mahatma Gandhi brilliantly chose salt as a symbol that could unite all classes and sections of Indian society in a common struggle. It made the abstract idea of freedom more concrete and relatable to the masses.
-
Symbol of Oppression: The salt tax revealed the most oppressive face of British rule. It was a tax on an essential item of food, which highlighted the economic exploitation of Indians by the colonial government. By attacking the salt law, Gandhiji was attacking a clear and unjust symbol of British oppression.
-
Mass Mobilisation: The march itself, covering 240 miles from Sabarmati to Dandi, attracted huge crowds and media attention. Thousands of people, including a large number of women who participated in a public protest for the first time, came to hear Gandhiji and joined the movement. This mass participation transformed the struggle into a nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement.
-
A Challenge to British Authority: By ceremonially violating the law and manufacturing salt from seawater, Gandhiji and his followers directly challenged the authority of the British government. It was a simple, non-violent act of defiance that demonstrated the power of civil disobedience. It inspired thousands across the country to break the salt law and other colonial laws, such as forest laws, and to refuse to pay taxes, thereby shaking the foundations of British rule in India.
Q3Discuss
Imagine you are a woman participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement. Explain what the experience meant to your life.
Solution
As a woman participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement, the experience would have been transformative. For the first time in my life, I moved out of the confines of my home and into the public sphere. Responding to Gandhiji's call, I felt that serving the nation was my sacred duty.
My daily life changed completely. I participated in long protest marches, shouting slogans for Swaraj alongside men. I learned to manufacture salt, a direct act of defiance against the British government. I stood for hours with other women, picketing shops that sold foreign cloth and liquor, persuading people to boycott them. The sense of purpose and camaraderie was empowering.
This experience brought with it great risks. I faced the wrath of the police, was beaten with lathis, and even went to jail. But instead of breaking my spirit, it strengthened my resolve. I was no longer just a wife or a mother; I was a soldier in the fight for my country's freedom.
However, this newfound public role did not mean complete equality. Even within the movement, many leaders, including Gandhiji, believed that a woman's primary duty was to her home and family. While our participation was welcomed, we were rarely given positions of authority within the Congress. So, my experience was a mix of empowerment and the realization that the struggle for true equality, both within the nation and within my own society, was far from over. It was a profound awakening to my own strength and the complex realities of the freedom struggle.
Q4Discuss
Why did political leaders differ sharply over the question of separate electorates?
Solution
Political leaders differed sharply over the question of separate electorates because it touched upon fundamental issues of representation, national unity, and the protection of minority rights. Different groups had conflicting views based on their social and political positions.
-
Dalit Leaders (e.g., Dr. B.R. Ambedkar): They were strong proponents of separate electorates for the dalits (or Depressed Classes). They believed that the system of joint electorates would not allow for the true representation of dalits, as candidates would have to appeal to the majority high-caste Hindu voters. They argued that only through separate electorates, where dalits would choose their own representatives, could they achieve political empowerment and address their social disabilities and oppression.
-
Congress Leaders (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi): The Congress, and particularly Mahatma Gandhi, strongly opposed the idea of separate electorates for dalits. Gandhiji believed that this would permanently segregate the dalits from the rest of Hindu society and slow down the process of their integration. He feared it would weaken the national movement by creating divisions within the Hindu community. He undertook a fast unto death in 1932 to protest the British decision to grant separate electorates to dalits, which resulted in the Poona Pact.
-
Muslim Leaders (e.g., Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Iqbal): Many Muslim leaders and organisations, like the Muslim League, demanded separate electorates to safeguard the interests of Muslims as a minority in India. They feared that in a democratic system with a Hindu majority, the culture, religion, and political identity of Muslims would be submerged. They saw separate electorates as a necessary political safeguard to ensure that Muslims had a meaningful voice and representation in the legislative councils.
-
Hindu Nationalist Groups (e.g., Hindu Mahasabha): Leaders like M.R. Jayakar of the Hindu Mahasabha strongly opposed any compromise on the issue of separate electorates for Muslims. They viewed it as a concession that would weaken the unity of the nation and promote communal divisions. They believed in a unified national identity where such separate political arrangements for religious communities had no place.
Thus, the debate was a clash between the vision of a unified nation with a common electorate and the demand for political safeguards by minority communities who feared domination by the majority.
Q1Write in brief
Explain: a) Why growth of nationalism in the colonies is linked to an anti-colonial movement. b) How the First World War helped in the growth of the National Movement in India. c) Why Indians were outraged by the Rowlatt Act. d) Why Gandhiji decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Solution
a) The growth of nationalism in the colonies is intrinsically linked to the anti-colonial movement because the struggle against colonialism became the unifying force for people from different backgrounds. The shared experience of oppression under a common foreign power created a sense of collective identity and a shared bond. People began to discover their unity in the process of their struggle with colonialism. This collective struggle helped forge a sense of a common nationhood, where freedom from colonial rule was the primary goal that brought diverse groups and classes together.
b) The First World War helped in the growth of the National Movement in India in the following ways:
- Economic Hardship: The war led to a huge increase in defence expenditure, which was financed by war loans and increased taxes like customs duties and income tax. This burdened the common people.
- Price Rise: Prices of essential goods doubled between 1913 and 1918, leading to extreme hardship for the common people.
- Forced Recruitment: The colonial government carried out forced recruitment of soldiers from rural areas, which caused widespread anger.
- Famines and Epidemics: Crop failures in 1918-19 and 1920-21 led to acute food shortages, which were accompanied by a deadly influenza epidemic. The government's inadequate response fueled resentment. These factors created a situation of widespread distress and anger against the colonial government, strengthening the national movement.
c) Indians were outraged by the Rowlatt Act (1919) for the following reasons:
- Repressive Powers: The Act gave the government enormous powers to repress political activities.
- Unjust Detention: It allowed the detention of political prisoners without trial for a period of two years. This violated the basic principles of justice.
- Undemocratic Passage: The Act was passed hurriedly through the Imperial Legislative Council despite the united opposition of the Indian members. This showed the undemocratic nature of British rule and their disregard for Indian opinion.
d) Mahatma Gandhi decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement in February 1922 because:
- Growing Violence: The movement was turning violent in many places. The incident at Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur, where a peaceful demonstration turned into a violent clash with the police leading to the death of several policemen, was the immediate cause.
- Need for Training: Gandhiji felt that the satyagrahis were not yet ready for a mass struggle and needed to be properly trained in the principles of non-violence before they could participate in such a movement.
Q2Write in brief
What is meant by the idea of satyagraha?
Solution
The idea of satyagraha, as advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, is a novel method of mass agitation based on the power of truth and the need to search for truth. The key principles are:
- Truth and Non-violence: It suggests that if the cause is true and the struggle is against injustice, then physical force is not necessary to fight the oppressor. The battle can be won through non-violence.
- Appealing to Conscience: A satyagrahi does not seek to destroy the adversary but seeks to win them over by appealing to their conscience. The goal is to persuade the oppressor to see the truth, not to force them to accept it through violence.
- Soul-Force: Satyagraha is described as a 'pure soul-force'. It is not a weapon of the weak but a power that can only be used by the strong in spirit. It requires intense activity and self-suffering, not passive resistance.
Q3Write in brief
Write a newspaper report on: a) The Jallianwala Bagh massacre b) The Simon Commission
Solution
a) The Jallianwala Bagh massacre
Amritsar, 14 April 1919 – A day of celebration turned into a day of mourning yesterday, 13 April, when British troops under the command of General Dyer opened fire on a peaceful gathering at the enclosed ground of Jallianwalla Bagh. Hundreds of innocent men, women, and children are reported to have been killed.
The crowd had gathered for two main reasons: some were there to peacefully protest the government's repressive Rowlatt Act, while many others, including villagers from outside the city, had come to attend the annual Baisakhi fair. Most were unaware that martial law had been imposed in the city.
Eyewitnesses state that General Dyer arrived with his troops, blocked the only exit point, and without any warning, ordered his soldiers to open fire on the unarmed crowd. The firing continued for several minutes until the ammunition was exhausted. General Dyer later declared that his objective was to 'produce a moral effect' and to create a feeling of terror and awe in the minds of the people. The incident has sent shockwaves across the nation, leading to widespread outrage, strikes, and clashes with the police in many north Indian towns.
b) The Simon Commission
Bombay, 3 February 1928 – The Statutory Commission, led by Sir John Simon, was met with widespread protests and black flags upon its arrival in India today. Chants of 'Go back Simon' echoed through the streets as all major political parties, including the Congress and the Muslim League, united in their boycott of the commission.
The commission was constituted by the Tory government in Britain to review the functioning of the constitutional system in India and to suggest reforms. However, it has been vehemently opposed by Indian leaders because it does not include a single Indian member. The all-white composition of the commission is seen as a grave insult to the Indian people and a denial of their right to participate in shaping their own future.
Demonstrations have been organised across the country to protest against the commission. The unified opposition highlights the growing demand for self-rule and the refusal to accept constitutional reforms designed without Indian consultation. The boycott of the Simon Commission marks a significant moment of unity in India's struggle for freedom.
Q4Write in brief
Compare the images of Bharat Mata in this chapter with the image of Germania in Chapter 1.
Solution
The images of Bharat Mata in this chapter and the image of Germania (from Chapter 1, 'The Rise of Nationalism in Europe') are both female allegories used to represent their respective nations and inspire a sense of nationalism. However, they differ in their symbolism and portrayal.
Bharat Mata:
- Abanindranath Tagore's Painting (1905): This image portrays Bharat Mata as an ascetic, spiritual figure. She is calm, composed, and divine. She is shown dispensing learning, food, and clothing, and the mala in her hand emphasizes her spiritual quality. This representation reflects a mother figure who is serene and nurturing, embodying the spiritual essence of India.
- Later Images: Other representations of Bharat Mata show her with a trishul (trident), standing beside a lion and an elephant. These are symbols of power and authority, portraying a more assertive and powerful image of the motherland.
Germania:
- Symbolism: Germania is typically depicted as a heroic and martial figure. She wears a crown of oak leaves, which symbolises heroism. She is often shown holding a sword (representing readiness to fight) and a shield bearing the German eagle, or holding the black, red, and gold tricolour flag.
- Portrayal: Her posture is strong and defiant, symbolising the German nation's strength and willingness to defend the fatherland. The overall image is one of militant nationalism and valour.
Comparison:
- The primary difference lies in the initial portrayal. Tagore's Bharat Mata is spiritual and ascetic, focusing on the nation's cultural and spiritual wealth. In contrast, Germania is primarily a martial figure, representing military strength and heroism.
- While both figures served to create a visual identity for the nation and foster unity, Bharat Mata's image evolved from a serene, nurturing figure to a more powerful one, whereas Germania was consistently portrayed with symbols of strength and warfare.
- Bharat Mata's image is deeply rooted in Hindu iconography (e.g., the ascetic figure, the trishul), while Germania's symbolism is drawn from Germanic traditions and symbols of the German Empire.