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.
Non-Violent Movements: Colonial Authorities' Dilemma Explained
This question asks us to identify the reason why non-violent movements by common people consistently caused trouble for colonial authorities, based on the provided passage.
Passage Analysis: The Core Conflict
The passage highlights a key strategic difference in how non-violence was viewed: Gandhiji saw it as a principle, while many Congress leaders considered it a policy and a crucial element of their overall strategy. This strategy was vital because the Indian National Movement aimed for wide mass mobilization, and non-violent methods were essential for achieving this.
The passage explains the effectiveness of non-violence in detail:
- Enabling Mass Participation: Non-violent forms of struggle allowed large numbers of people, including women who might struggle with armed conflict, to participate. Women proved particularly resilient in facing hardship and enduring lathi charges.
- Fighting on Moral Ground: Non-violence meant engaging the opponent on the terrain of moral force. This put colonial authorities in a difficult position.
- Exposing Colonial Power: When authorities used force against peaceful Satyagrahis, it revealed that their rule was underpinned by brute force rather than consent or justice.
- Creating a Dilemma: Colonial rulers faced a no-win situation.
- If they hesitated to suppress a peaceful movement, they lost authority and hegemony because laws were being broken.
- If they used force to suppress it, they faced moral condemnation and exposed the violent nature of their rule, thus eroding their moral basis and hegemony.
- Erosion of Hegemony: By resorting to suppression, colonial authorities continuously weakened their own dominance and moral standing, exposing the force and coercion inherent in their rule. This led to the gradual destruction of their hegemony.
Colonial Authorities' Trouble: Option Breakdown
Let's analyze each option in light of the passage:
- Option 1: "The rulers never win against the non-violent movement of the masses." The passage states the rulers were in a "no-win situation" and often chose suppression, which *did* have an effect, albeit a negative one on their hegemony. It doesn't imply an absolute inability to win at all, but rather a situation where any action leads to loss. This option is too absolute.
- Option 2: "The movement of the common people raises a hornet's nest in front of the rulers." While the movements certainly caused trouble, this phrase is metaphorical and not the specific strategic or moral reason explained in the passage for the authorities' predicament.
- Option 3: "When force is used against the peaceful satyagrahis, it becomes clear that brute force is the real basis of the power of colonial state." The passage explicitly states: "When 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." It further elaborates that this action exposed "the basic underpinning of colonial rule in force and coercion." This option directly captures this critical point made in the passage about the consequence of suppression.
- Option 4: "The dominance or moral basis of the colonial regime is gradually being destroyed." The passage confirms this: "Consequently, the hegemony of colonial rule or its moral basis was destroyed bit by bit." This is a correct consequence, but Option 3 describes the *immediate trigger* for this trouble when authorities act – the act of using force against the peaceful nature of the movement. Option 3 explains *why* the trouble arises when they suppress, which in turn leads to the gradual destruction mentioned in Option 4. The question asks why they are put in trouble, and the direct revelation of their brute force when suppressing peaceful protestors (Option 3) is the core mechanism causing this trouble.
Conclusion
The passage emphasizes the dilemma faced by colonial authorities. When they resorted to force against peaceful Satyagrahis, their reliance on brute force became evident, undermining their moral authority and hegemony. This direct exposure of their methods is precisely what created significant trouble for them, as described in Option 3.
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'?
