Read the following passage and answer the questions For Gandhiji non-violence was a matter of principle. But for most of his contemporaries in the Congress-C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Acharya Narendra Dev and so on it was a matter of policy. As policy and as form of political action and behaviour, it was an essential component of the overall strategy of the National Congress. In fact, non-violence was in some essential ways integral to the nature of the Indian National Movement as a hegemonic movement based on wide mass mobilization. It was because of this hegemonic and mass character of the National Movement that non-violence became one of its basic elements. The adoption of non-violent forms of struggle enabled the participation of the mass of the people who could not have participated in a similar manner in a movement that adopted violent forms. This was particularly true of women's participation. Women would have found it difficult to join an armed struggle in large numbers. But when it came to undergoing suffering, facing lathi charges, picketing for hours on end in the summer or the winter, women were probably stronger than men. Non-violence as a form of struggle and political behaviour was also linked to the semi-hegemonic, semi-authoritarian character of colonial state and the democratic character of the polity in Britain. Non-violence meant above all fighting on the terrain of moral force. Non-violent mass movements placed the colonial authorities in the wrong and exposed the underpinning of colonial state power in brute force, when the authorities used armed force against peaceful Satyagrahis. In fact a non-violent mass movement put the rulers on the horns of a dialemma. If they hesitated to suppress it because it was peaceful, they lost an important part of their hegemony, because the civil resisters did break existing colonial laws; not to take action against them amounted to the abdication of administrative authority and a confession of the lack of strength to rule. If they suppressed the movement by use of force, they still lost, for it was morally difficult to justify the suppression of a peaceful movement and non-violent law-breakers through the use of force. They were in a no-win situation. The National Movement had, on the other hand, a winning strategy; a semi-democratic rule had no answer to a mass movement that was non-violent and had massive popular support. In practice the colonial authorities constantly vacillated between the two choices, usually plumbing in the end for suppression. By taking resource to suppression of a non-violent movement, they had to suffer constant erosion of hegemony by exposing the basic underpinning of colonial rule in force and coercion. Consequently, the hegemony of colonial rule or its moral basis was destroyed bit by bit.
Analyzing Non-Violence as a Political Strategy in the Indian National Movement
This question requires us to carefully read the provided passage about Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and its role within the Indian National Movement. We need to identify the statement that is factually incorrect according to the information given in the text.
Passage Summary on Non-Violence
The passage highlights that while for Gandhiji, non-violence was a principle, for many Congress leaders like C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, and Sardar Patel, it was a matter of policy and a crucial part of their overall strategy. Non-violence was integral to the Indian National Movement because of its hegemonic nature and reliance on wide mass mobilization. This approach allowed the participation of common people, including women, who might not have joined violent struggles. Non-violent movements fought on the terrain of moral force, placing colonial authorities in a dilemma. If authorities suppressed peaceful movements, they appeared morally wrong and exposed their reliance on brute force. If they did not act against law-breakers, they risked losing administrative authority. This strategy effectively eroded the hegemony and moral basis of colonial rule.
Statement-by-Statement Analysis
Option 1: The movement of the common people poses a challenge to the rulers.
The passage states that non-violent struggle enabled the "participation of the mass of the people" and was essential for a "hegemonic movement based on wide mass mobilization." Such mass participation inherently poses a significant challenge to any ruling power, including the colonial rulers. Thus, this statement is consistent with the passage.
Option 2: The message it conveys is that the colonial government does not have the capacity to rule if action is not taken against those who violate colonial laws.
The passage explains the dilemma faced by colonial authorities: "not to take action against them amounted to the abdication of administrative authority and a confession of the lack of strength to rule." This directly supports the idea that inaction against law-breakers signals a lack of ruling capacity. Therefore, this statement aligns with the passage.
Option 3: Even if the movement is suppressed by force, the government itself is defeated.
According to the passage, "If they suppressed the movement by use of force, they still lost, for it was morally difficult to justify the suppression of a peaceful movement...". This indicates a form of defeat for the government, even through suppression, due to the moral implications. This statement is supported by the text.
Option 4: It is not morally unjustifiable to use force to control a peaceful movement and those who break the law in a non-violent way.
The passage explicitly states the opposite: "it was morally difficult to justify the suppression of a peaceful movement and non-violent law-breakers through the use of force." The statement claims it is "not morally unjustifiable," which implies it *is* morally justifiable or at least not morally wrong. This directly contradicts the passage's assertion that it is morally difficult to justify, meaning it is indeed morally questionable or unjustifiable. Therefore, this is the incorrect statement.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis, Option 4 presents a claim that is directly contrary to the explanation provided in the passage regarding the moral implications of suppressing peaceful, non-violent movements.
Important Questions from Reading Comprehension
Why, according to the writer can't people be motivated to use a resource prudently?
1. They feel that others may overuse the resource
2. It is possible to substitute the resource
3. Abundance of the resource availability
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
When do people use resources exhaustively?
The self-interest of people affects the use of renewable resources
People rooted in a locality
Which among the following is closest in meaning with the word 'deplete'?
