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.
Read the statements:
a. The Indian National Movement was in the form of a 'hegemonic movement carried out on the basis of broad mass organization'.
b. Non-violence became a fundamental element of the National Movement due to the hegemonic nature of the mass movement.
c. The adoption of non-violent forms of movement enabled the common people to participate in this movement.
Understanding the Indian National Movement and Non-violence
This question asks us to analyze the relationship between three statements about the Indian National Movement, drawing conclusions from the provided passage. The passage discusses how non-violence was viewed by Mahatma Gandhi versus other Congress leaders, and its crucial role in the movement's success.
Analyzing Statement A: Hegemonic Nature of the Movement
Statement 'a' claims: "The Indian National Movement was in the form of a 'hegemonic movement carried out on the basis of broad mass organization'."
The passage directly supports this by stating: "...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." This confirms that the movement's character was indeed hegemonic and relied on broad mass organization, as described in statement 'a'.
Analyzing Statement B: Non-violence as a Fundamental Element
Statement 'b' posits: "Non-violence became a fundamental element of the National Movement due to the hegemonic nature of the mass movement."
The passage explicitly links the movement's hegemonic nature to the adoption of non-violence. It says: "It was because of this hegemonic and mass character of the National Movement that non-violence became one of its basic elements." This shows that the hegemonic nature (statement 'a') was the reason non-violence became fundamental (statement 'b'). Thus, the hegemonic nature is a cause, and non-violence becoming fundamental is an effect or consequence.
Analyzing Statement C: Mass Participation via Non-violence
Statement 'c' states: "The adoption of non-violent forms of movement enabled the common people to participate in this movement."
The passage highlights this aspect clearly: "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 confirms that non-violent methods were instrumental in bringing common people into the movement.
Connecting Statements B and C: Cause and Effect
We need to determine the relationship between statement 'b' and statement 'c'.
- Statement 'b' establishes that non-violence became a fundamental element due to the movement's hegemonic nature.
- Statement 'c' describes how the adoption of non-violent forms facilitated mass participation.
The passage indicates a sequence: The movement's hegemonic character led to non-violence becoming a fundamental element (statement 'b'). Once non-violence was established as a core element, its practical application through "non-violent forms of struggle" naturally followed. It was precisely this adoption and application of non-violent forms that enabled widespread participation from the common people (statement 'c').
Therefore, the fact that non-violence became a fundamental element (statement 'b') directly led to its adoption as a practical strategy, which in turn enabled mass participation (statement 'c'). This means that statement 'c' is an effect that arises from statement 'b'.
Conclusion on Relationships
Based on the passage's logical flow and explicit statements:
- The hegemonic nature of the movement (related to 'a') caused non-violence to become fundamental ('b').
- Non-violence becoming fundamental ('b') led to the adoption of non-violent forms, which enabled mass participation ('c').
Thus, the adoption of non-violent forms (described in 'c') is an effect that stems from non-violence being a fundamental element ('b').
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'?
