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.
Understanding Women's Participation in the Indian National Movement
The provided passage delves into the philosophy and strategic importance of non-violence within the Indian National Movement. It explains how this principle influenced the movement's ability to attract a broad base of participants, with a specific focus on the role and participation of women.
The Strategic Role of Non-Violence
According to the passage, while Mahatma Gandhi viewed non-violence as a matter of principle, many prominent Congress leaders like C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and Sardar Patel considered it a strategic policy. It was an essential component of the National Congress's overall strategy for political action and behavior.
The text emphasizes that non-violence was fundamentally linked to the nature of the Indian National Movement itself, particularly its character as a hegemonic movement aiming for wide mass mobilization. This mass character directly contributed to non-violence becoming a foundational element of the movement.
Facilitating Mass Participation, Especially for Women
The adoption of non-violent forms of struggle was instrumental in enabling the participation of large numbers of people. The passage specifically highlights:
- Non-violent methods allowed masses of people, who might not have been able to participate in a violent movement, to join the struggle.
- This was especially true for women. The passage notes that women would have faced significant difficulties participating in an armed struggle.
- Conversely, women demonstrated remarkable resilience and strength when it came to enduring hardship, facing police brutality like lathi charges, and participating in prolonged picketing, often proving stronger than men in these non-violent actions.
The passage also links non-violence to the political context, stating it involved fighting on the "terrain of moral force." This strategy placed the colonial authorities in a difficult position. If they suppressed peaceful movements, they risked losing moral authority and exposing their reliance on brute force. If they hesitated to suppress, they risked losing administrative control. This created a "no-win situation" for the colonial rulers against a non-violent, mass-supported movement.
Analysis of the Options
Option 1: Non-violence was an integral part of the nature of the Indian National Movement.
This statement aligns directly with the passage's core argument. The text explicitly states, "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 further explains that because of this hegemonic and mass character, non-violence became a basic element, which consequently enabled mass participation, particularly that of women.
Option 2: Women could not participate in violent movement.
The passage suggests this implicitly. It states, "Women would have found it difficult to join an armed struggle in large numbers." This difficulty in joining violent movements made non-violent participation a more viable option for them. While true and a contributing reason, it's a consequence of the movement's structure (as described in Option 1) rather than the primary statement about the movement's nature itself.
Option 3: Women participated in armed struggle in large numbers.
This option is directly contradicted by the passage, which indicates that women would have found it difficult to participate in armed struggles.
Option 4: Non-violence meant fighting in the arena of moral strength.
The passage does mention that non-violence "meant above all fighting on the terrain of moral force," which put colonial authorities in a dilemma. However, this describes the *method* and its *impact* on the rulers, rather than being the direct reason *why* it enabled women's participation. Option 1 provides the foundational reason related to the movement's overall nature and mass mobilization strategy.
Therefore, the most accurate reason provided in the passage for women's ability to participate in the Indian National Movement is that non-violence was an integral aspect of the movement's nature, facilitating broad participation.
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'?
