All questions of Nationalist Movement (1905-1947) for BPSC (Bihar) Exam

Achievements of Swarajists:

1. Vitthal Bhai Patel elected as Speaker of Central Legislative Assembly in 1925:
- Swarajists were a group of Indian politicians who contested elections to the Central Legislative Assembly under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, which allowed for limited self-government in India.
- In 1925, Vitthal Bhai Patel, a prominent Swarajist leader, was elected as the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly, which was a significant achievement for the Swarajist movement.
- Patel was the first Indian to hold this position, and it gave the Swarajists a platform to voice their demands for greater self-government for India.

2. Defeat of the Public Safety Bill 1928:
- The Public Safety Bill was introduced in 1928 by the British government in India to curb political activities and suppress dissent.
- The Swarajists, along with other Indian nationalist groups, opposed the bill and launched a campaign against it.
- The Swarajists' efforts paid off, and the bill was eventually defeated in the Central Legislative Assembly, which was a significant victory for the Indian nationalist movement.

3. Setting up of National Schools and Colleges:
- The Swarajists believed that education was an essential tool for creating a non-colonial ideological framework in India.
- To achieve this goal, they set up national schools and colleges where students were trained in an Indian cultural and ideological framework.
- These institutions aimed to provide education that was free from the influence of colonialism and imperialism, and they played a crucial role in shaping the Indian nationalist movement.

In conclusion, the Swarajists were able to achieve significant victories in their fight for self-government and national education in India. Their efforts helped pave the way for India's eventual independence in 1947.

The president of the Indian National Congress annual session in 1905 was Gopal Krishna Gokhale.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale:
- Gopal Krishna Gokhale was an Indian liberal political leader and a social reformer.
- He was a senior leader of the Indian National Congress and the founder of the Servants of India Society.
- Gokhale was known for his moderate views and his belief in gradual reform through constitutional means.
- He was a mentor to many Indian leaders including Mahatma Gandhi.

Indian National Congress Annual Session 1905:
- The Indian National Congress annual session in 1905 was held in Banaras (now Varanasi).
- The session was presided over by Gopal Krishna Gokhale.
- The session was significant as it marked the beginning of the Swadeshi movement in India.
- The Swadeshi movement was a nationalist movement that aimed to promote Indian goods and boycott British goods as a means of economic protest against British colonial rule.

Conclusion:
Gopal Krishna Gokhale was the president of the Indian National Congress annual session in 1905 held in Banaras, which marked the beginning of the Swadeshi movement in India.

Vasudev Balavant Phadke was one of the first persons to start the revolutionary activity in India. He was born in 1845 in Maharashtra. He was a social reformer and a freedom fighter who played an important role in the Indian independence movement.

Early Life and Education
Vasudev Balavant Phadke was born in a small village in Maharashtra. He was the son of a farmer and had a simple upbringing. He received his education in a local school and later went on to study at the Deccan College in Pune.

Revolutionary Activities
Phadke was deeply influenced by the ideas of Swami Vivekananda and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He became involved in the freedom struggle and started organizing secret meetings and rallies to spread awareness among the people.

In 1875, he formed the 'Ranangan Sabha' in Pune, which was a secret society aimed at overthrowing the British rule in India. He also formed a private army of about 200 men, which he called the 'Pandavas'.

In 1879, he launched an armed rebellion against the British in Maharashtra. He attacked several British targets and even managed to capture a small town called Dhamari. However, his rebellion was short-lived as he was arrested by the British and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Legacy
Vasudev Balavant Phadke's contribution to the Indian freedom struggle was immense. He was one of the first persons to start the revolutionary activity in India. His fearless attitude and dedication to the cause of freedom inspired many others to follow in his footsteps.

Today, he is remembered as a hero who fought for the freedom of his country. His legacy continues to inspire people to fight against oppression and injustice.

Statement Analysis:

Statement 1: Except Provincial Congress Committees, The Congress Working Committee, the All India Congress Committee were declared unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908.

Statement 2: The assembly of public meetings was prohibited under the Defence of India Rules.

Correctness of the statements:

Statement 1 is not correct as it states that Provincial Congress Committees were not declared unlawful associations, which is false. In fact, all Congress Committees were declared unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908.

Statement 2 is correct as the assembly of public meetings was indeed prohibited under the Defence of India Rules.

Therefore, the correct answer is option 'A' - 1 Only.

Explanation:

The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 was enacted by the British Government to suppress political dissent in India. Under this act, the Congress Working Committee, the All India Congress Committee, and all Provincial Congress Committees were declared unlawful associations. This meant that any person found to be a member of these associations could be arrested and prosecuted.

The Defence of India Rules were also introduced during the First World War to control political activities in India. These rules prohibited the assembly of public meetings, processions, and demonstrations without prior permission from the authorities. This was done to prevent anti-British sentiments from spreading and to maintain law and order.

In conclusion, both the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 and the Defence of India Rules were used by the British Government to suppress political dissent and maintain their control over India.

The Prevention of seditious meetings Act (1907) The Explosives Substances Act (1908) The Press Act (1910) Annulment of the partition (1911).

Explanation:

Split in Congress:

- The Congress split in 1907 at Surat session due to ideological differences between moderates and extremists.
- The moderates were led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and the extremists were led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal.

Different Approaches:

- The moderates supported the resolutions on Swaraj (self-rule), Swadeshi (boycott of foreign goods), and Boycott of foreign goods as proposed by extremists but differed in the approach to implement these ideas.
- Moderates believed in constitutional methods and believed in gradual reform while extremists believed in more radical methods and direct action.

Presidential Candidate:

- In the Surat session, extremists wanted Lala Lajpat Rai or Bal Gangadhar Tilak as the presidential candidate of Congress.
- Moderates supported Dr. Rashbihari Ghosh, a moderate leader from Bengal, as the presidential candidate.

Correct option:

- Option B is correct as statement 2 is true and statement 1 is not completely correct. While moderates supported the resolutions proposed by extremists, they differed in their approach to implement these ideas.

Explanation:

The correct answer is option 'D' - None of them.

Statement 1: What angered the Indians most was the exclusion of Indians from the commission and the basic notion behind the exclusion that foreigners would discuss and decide upon India's self-government fitness.

This statement is correct. During the time of British rule in India, the Simon Commission was appointed by the British government to propose constitutional reforms for India. However, the commission did not include any Indian members, which angered the Indians. They felt that the exclusion of Indians from the commission was unfair and reflected the British government's lack of trust in the Indian people's ability to discuss and decide upon their own self-government fitness. This exclusion was one of the main reasons for the widespread protests and opposition against the Simon Commission.

Statement 2: This notion was seen as a violation of the principle of self-determination and as a deliberate insult to the self-respect of Indians.

This statement is also correct. The notion of excluding Indians from the Simon Commission was seen by the Indians as a violation of the principle of self-determination. Self-determination is the right of a nation or people to govern themselves and make decisions about their own political, economic, and social affairs. By excluding Indians from the commission, the British government was denying Indians the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and determine their own future.

Furthermore, the exclusion of Indians from the commission was perceived as a deliberate insult to the self-respect of Indians. It sent a message that the British government did not value the opinions and capabilities of the Indian people. This insult to their self-respect further fueled the anger and resentment among the Indian population, leading to widespread protests, boycotts, and demands for complete independence from British rule.

In conclusion, both statements are correct. The exclusion of Indians from the Simon Commission and the notion behind this exclusion were major sources of anger and resentment among the Indian population, as it violated the principle of self-determination and insulted their self-respect.

- This statement is correct. Lonar Lake is indeed a notified National Geo-Heritage Monument.
- Lonar Lake is a unique and ancient crater lake located in the Buldhana district of Maharashtra, India.
- It was formed around 50,000 years ago when a meteorite hit the Earth's surface, creating a circular crater with a diameter of about 1.8 kilometers.
- The lake and its surrounding area have significant geological and ecological importance, which led to its recognition as a National Geo-Heritage Monument.
- The lake is also known for its rich biodiversity and is home to various species of flora and fauna.


- This statement is incorrect. Lonar Lake is not acidic in nature.
- The lake is situated inside the Deccan Plateau, which is a large plateau in central India.
- However, Lonar Lake is alkaline or basic in nature, with a pH level of around 10-11.5.
- The alkalinity of the lake is primarily due to the presence of various salts and minerals dissolved in its water, such as sodium, magnesium, and potassium.
- The lake's alkaline nature has created a unique ecosystem, with several microorganisms adapted to the extreme conditions.

Therefore, only statement 1 is correct, and statement 2 is incorrect. The correct answer is option 'A' - 1 only.

The correct answer is option 'C' - 1 and 3 Only.

Explanation:

1. Absence of anti-Zamindar violence:
- The Quit India Movement, also known as the August Movement, was a mass civil disobedience movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi on 8th August 1942.
- The movement aimed at demanding an end to British colonial rule in India.
- Unlike previous movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Civil Disobedience Movement, the Quit India Movement did not witness widespread anti-Zamindar violence.
- This is in contrast to the previous movements where there were instances of attacks on landlords and zamindars.
- The Quit India Movement focused more on non-violent protests, strikes, and non-cooperation with the British government.

2. Lower level of government officials maintained government loyalty:
- During the Quit India Movement, there were instances where lower-level government officials maintained their loyalty to the British government.
- This was mainly because many of these officials were from lower-income backgrounds and relied on their jobs for their livelihood.
- Moreover, the British government had a strong hold on the administrative machinery, and many officials feared losing their jobs or facing consequences if they joined the movement.
- However, it is important to note that there were also instances where government officials, including police and administrative staff, actively participated in the Quit India Movement, defying the government's orders.

3. Low key response from the Muslim League:
- The Muslim League, which represented the interests of the Muslims in India, initially had reservations about the Quit India Movement.
- They were concerned that the movement would lead to anarchy and Hindu domination in an independent India.
- However, as the movement gained momentum and the British government cracked down on the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League gradually extended its support to the movement.
- While the response from the Muslim League was not as active or enthusiastic as that of the Indian National Congress, they did join the movement in certain regions and played a role in the anti-British struggle.

In conclusion, during the Quit India Movement, there was a relative absence of anti-Zamindar violence, and the Muslim League initially showed a low-key response but eventually extended its support. However, lower-level government officials generally maintained their loyalty to the British government. Therefore, option 'C' - 1 and 3 Only, is the correct answer.

Komagata Maru Incident

The Komagata Maru incident refers to a significant event in the history of Indian immigration to Canada. It took place in 1914 and is named after the ship called Komagata Maru, which was carrying 370 passengers from India. The incident had far-reaching consequences and became a symbol of racial discrimination and exclusionary immigration policies.

The Ship's Journey
The Komagata Maru set sail from Singapore with the intention of reaching Vancouver, Canada. The passengers on board were predominantly Sikh immigrants who hoped to settle in Canada for various reasons, including economic opportunities and escaping political unrest in India. However, their journey was met with numerous challenges and ultimately led to the infamous Komagata Maru incident.

Racial Discrimination and Exclusionary Immigration Policies
At the time, Canada had implemented strict immigration laws aimed at restricting the entry of non-European immigrants. The Continuous Journey Regulation was one such policy that required immigrants to arrive in Canada via a continuous journey from their country of origin without any stops. This regulation was primarily intended to discourage immigration from India.

Denial of Entry and Forced Return
When the Komagata Maru reached Vancouver on May 23, 1914, it was not allowed to dock. The Canadian authorities cited the Continuous Journey Regulation as the reason for denying entry to the passengers. The ship was forced to remain anchored in the harbor for two months, during which the passengers faced dire conditions, including limited food and water supplies.

Legal Battle and Tragic Outcome
The passengers on board the Komagata Maru fought a legal battle to challenge their denial of entry. However, their efforts were in vain, and on July 23, 1914, the ship was escorted out of Canadian waters by the authorities. Upon their return to India, the passengers faced further persecution and many were arrested.

Legacy and Significance
The Komagata Maru incident is considered a watershed moment in the history of Indian immigration to Canada. It highlighted the racial discrimination and exclusionary immigration policies that prevailed at the time. The incident sparked protests, both in Canada and India, and played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and eventually leading to changes in immigration policies.

Conclusion
The correct answer is option 'A' - the ship was going from Singapore to Vancouver. The Komagata Maru incident serves as a reminder of the struggles faced by early Indian immigrants and the fight against racial discrimination. It is an integral part of the immigration history of both Canada and India.

The correct answer is B

The correct answer is option 'D' - Neither 1 nor 2.

1. Jinnah and Ambedkar attended all the three Round table conferences.
This statement is incorrect. While Jinnah did attend all the three Round Table Conferences, Ambedkar did not attend the first Round Table Conference in 1930. He attended the second and third Round Table Conferences in 1931 and 1932 respectively. Ambedkar played a significant role in the framing of the Indian Constitution and was one of the principal architects of the Constitution of India.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru was the first satyagrahi identified by Gandhi for the individual satyagraha.
This statement is also incorrect. The individual satyagraha was a part of the Civil Disobedience Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi in 1940. It aimed to protest against the British government's decision to involve India in World War II without consulting Indian leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru was not the first satyagrahi identified by Gandhi for the individual satyagraha. The first satyagrahi selected by Gandhi for the individual satyagraha was Vinoba Bhave, a social reformer and disciple of Gandhi. Nehru himself participated in the individual satyagraha later, but he was not the first satyagrahi.

In conclusion, both statements given in the question are incorrect. Jinnah and Ambedkar did not attend all the three Round Table Conferences, and Nehru was not the first satyagrahi identified by Gandhi for the individual satyagraha.

Swadeshi Movement was a movement started by Indian nationalists to oppose the British rule and promote Indian goods and industries. It was launched on August 7, 1905, in response to the British government's decision to partition Bengal.

The following events happened during the Swadeshi Movement:

1. Bengal National College was set up: The Bengal National College was established in 1906 by Aurobindo Ghosh and other nationalist leaders. The college aimed to provide education to Indians in their own language and promote national consciousness among them.

2. National Council of Education was set up: The National Council of Education was established in 1906 by Aurobindo Ghosh and other nationalist leaders. The council aimed to promote education in India and to develop a national system of education.

3. A Bengal Institute of Technology was set up: The Bengal Institute of Technology was established in 1906 by nationalist leaders to promote technical education among Indians.

Therefore, the correct option is D, i.e., all of them. These events were significant in promoting the Swadeshi movement and creating a sense of national consciousness among Indians. They also played a crucial role in promoting education and technical skills among Indians, which was essential for the growth of Indian industries and economy.

Jinnah went back to the Shafi faction of the Muslim League and in March 1929 gave fourteen points which were to become the basis of all future propaganda of the Muslim League. The fourteen points were as follows. 

The correct answer is option 'A' which states that statement 1 is correct while statement 2 is incorrect. Let's understand the reasoning behind this answer.

1. Increase in the prestige of the Congress:
During the period of Congress Ministries, the Indian National Congress formed ministries in several provinces of British India. These ministries were formed after the success of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Round Table Conferences. The ministries aimed to demonstrate the ability of the Congress to govern and effectively use state power for the benefit of the people.

The Congress ministries implemented various progressive policies and initiatives, such as agrarian reforms, labor welfare measures, expansion of education and healthcare, and promotion of local industries. This resulted in an improvement in the living conditions of the people and an increase in their trust and support for the Congress. The successful functioning of the ministries showcased the leadership and administrative capabilities of the Congress, thereby enhancing its prestige among the masses.

2. Changing the imperialistic character of the system:
The second statement, however, is incorrect. The Congress ministries were limited in their power and authority as they functioned within the framework of the British colonial system. They had to work within the constraints of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was a product of British imperialism. The Governor, who represented the British crown, had significant control and could override the decisions of the ministries. The British-controlled bureaucracy also posed challenges to the implementation of Congress policies.

While the Congress ministries made efforts to address the socio-economic issues and uplift the marginalized sections of society, they were unable to fundamentally alter the imperialistic character of the system. The ultimate decision-making power and control remained with the British authorities.

In conclusion, the statement that is correct is statement 1, which highlights the increase in the prestige of the Congress as it successfully demonstrated its ability to lead and utilize state power for the welfare of the people. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Congress ministries were unable to change the fundamental imperialistic character of the system in which they operated.

Explanation:




1. Goodwill between Labour and Capital:
- The first statement is correct as efforts were indeed made to create goodwill between labour and capital with the mediation of ministries during the period in question.
- The government aimed to improve the relationship between workers and employers to create a harmonious working environment.
- This was important to ensure industrial peace and boost productivity in the country.

2. Treatment of Trade Union Protests:
- The second statement is also correct as the ministries did treat militant trade union protests as law-and-order problems.
- However, they also acted as mediators to resolve conflicts between the workers and the management whenever possible.
- This approach helped in preventing escalation of issues and maintained stability in the industrial sector.

Therefore, both statements are correct as they highlight the dual role played by the ministries in managing labour-capital relations during the period under consideration.

The leader of the civil disobedience movement in Orissa was Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari. He played a crucial role in mobilizing the people of Orissa and leading them in their fight against British colonial rule. Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari was a prominent freedom fighter and social reformer who dedicated his life to the cause of Indian independence.

Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari was born on July 6, 1895, in the village of Alasua in Cuttack district, Orissa. He was deeply influenced by the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and was actively involved in the non-cooperation movement. Chaudhari believed in the power of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience as effective means to challenge British authority.

Under the leadership of Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari, the civil disobedience movement gained momentum in Orissa. He organized various protests, marches, and acts of civil disobedience to challenge British laws and policies. Chaudhari encouraged people to boycott British goods, refuse to pay taxes, and participate in acts of civil disobedience such as salt satyagraha and picketing of liquor shops.

Chaudhari also played a significant role in promoting social reforms and uplifting the marginalized sections of society. He fought against untouchability, caste discrimination, and other social evils prevalent at that time. He worked tirelessly to empower women and promote education and healthcare in rural areas.

Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari's leadership and dedication inspired thousands of people in Orissa to join the freedom struggle. He became a symbol of resistance and a source of inspiration for the people of Orissa. His efforts paved the way for the eventual liberation of India from British rule.

In conclusion, Gopal Bandhu Chaudhari was the leader of the civil disobedience movement in Orissa. He played a pivotal role in mobilizing the people of Orissa and leading them in their fight against British colonial rule. Chaudhari's commitment to non-violent resistance and social reform made him a revered figure in the freedom struggle.

Reduction of military expenditure and civil service salaries:
- Mahatma Gandhi demanded a reduction in military expenditure as he believed that the resources could be better utilized for the welfare of the people.
- He also called for a decrease in civil service salaries to cut down on unnecessary expenses and promote equality among the citizens.

Changes in the Arms Act:
- Gandhi sought changes in the Arms Act to limit the possession of arms and ammunition, as he believed in non-violence and wanted to prevent any potential violence or armed uprisings.

Abolition of salt tax:
- One of the most famous demands of Mahatma Gandhi was the abolition of the salt tax. He believed that salt was a basic necessity and should be freely available to all citizens without any tax.
Therefore, out of the given options, the correct answer is option 'A' which includes demands 1, 3, and 4. These demands were part of the eleven demands put forward by Mahatma Gandhi before the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement in India.

Background:
Mahatma Gandhi was a prominent leader in the Indian independence movement. He advocated for nonviolent civil disobedience as a means to achieve political and social change. Swarajists, on the other hand, were a group of leaders within the Indian National Congress who believed in participating in the legislative councils established by the British government.

Explanation:
1. He was opposed to the council-entry programme of Swarajists:
Mahatma Gandhi was indeed opposed to the council-entry programme of the Swarajists. He believed that participating in the legislative councils would legitimize British rule and compromise the goal of complete independence. Gandhi advocated for a complete boycott of the councils and called for the promotion of self-reliance and self-governance at the grassroots level.

2. He never considered them patriots and avoided any personal relations with Swarajists:
This statement is not entirely accurate. While Gandhi was opposed to the council-entry programme, he did not view the Swarajists as unpatriotic. In fact, many of the Swarajist leaders, such as Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das, were respected figures in the Indian National Congress and played significant roles in the freedom struggle. Gandhi may have disagreed with their approach, but he recognized their contributions to the movement.

However, it is true that Gandhi maintained a certain distance from the Swarajists and did not form close personal relations with them. This was mainly due to his differing views on the means and methods of achieving independence. Gandhi believed in nonviolent resistance and mass mobilization, while the Swarajists believed in utilizing the legislative councils to push for reforms. Despite this, Gandhi did not consider them unpatriotic or enemies of the freedom movement.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, Mahatma Gandhi was opposed to the council-entry programme of the Swarajists, but he did not view them as unpatriotic. While he maintained a distance from them and did not form close personal relations, Gandhi recognized their contributions to the freedom struggle. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'A' - 1 only.

The Indian National Congress had several objections to the Cripps mission, which was a proposal for Indian constitutional reform presented by Sir Stafford Cripps, a British politician, in 1942. The objections can be summarized as follows:

1. Objection to the provinces' right to form unions: The INC believed that allowing provinces to form unions would harm national unity and lead to the fragmentation of India. They argued that a strong central government was necessary to maintain the integrity of the country.

2. Objection to the Governor-General's power: The INC opposed the retention of the Governor-General's powers, as they believed that he should be a constitutional head rather than having executive powers. They wanted a system of government where the Governor-General would act on the advice of Indian ministers.

3. Lack of concrete plan for immediate transfer of power: The INC was disappointed with the lack of a clear plan for the immediate transfer of power from British rule to Indian self-rule. They felt that the proposals presented by Cripps were vague and lacked a definite timeline for independence.

Overall, the Indian National Congress felt that the Cripps mission did not go far enough in terms of granting India full independence and did not address their concerns about national unity and the role of the Governor-General. Therefore, they rejected the proposals and continued to press for a more comprehensive plan for Indian self-rule.

Explanation:

The correct answer is option 'B' i.e. only statement 2 is not correct.

Statement 1: Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Congress socialists and communists were opposed to office acceptance and thereby in the working of the 1935 Act because they argued that it would negate the rejection of the Act by the nationalists.

This statement is correct. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Congress socialists and communists were indeed opposed to office acceptance and the working of the 1935 Act. They argued that by accepting office under the Act, the nationalists would be accepting the legitimacy of the Act, which they had vehemently rejected. They believed that the Act was a tool of the British government to maintain control and divide the nationalist movement. Accepting office under the Act would be seen as a compromise and would undermine the nationalist cause.

Statement 2: The leftists opposed entry into the councils to create deadlocks, thus making the working of the 1935 Act impossible.

This statement is not correct. The leftists did not oppose entry into the councils with the intention of creating deadlocks. In fact, they believed in using the councils as a platform to voice their concerns and push for their agenda. They saw participation in the councils as a way to expose the limitations and flaws of the 1935 Act and to highlight the need for more radical changes. They aimed to use the councils to mobilize public opinion and create pressure for further reforms.

While the leftists had reservations about the 1935 Act and its limitations, their approach was different from the nationalists who rejected the Act outright. The leftists saw participation in the councils as a tactical move to advance their agenda, while the nationalists saw it as a compromise and a betrayal of the nationalist cause.

In conclusion, statement 1 is correct but statement 2 is not correct.

The Correct answer is option 'D' i.e. neither of them.

Explanation:

The given statements are incorrect. The correct statements are:

1. The moderates wanted to use constitutional methods to achieve their goals and did not support the Swadeshi movement as it involved boycott of British goods and institutions.
2. The extremists, on the other hand, wanted to use direct revolutionary methods to overthrow the British rule and did not limit their actions to Bengal alone.

Therefore, both the given statements are incorrect.

The correct answer is option 'A': 1 Only.

Explanation:

Statement 1: In 1934, the All-India Congress Committee met at Patna to set up a parliamentary board to fight elections under the Congress's aegis.
Statement 2: A large section of the intelligentsia favoured parliamentary politics with which Gandhi was fundamentally agreed.

Let's analyze each statement individually:

Statement 1: In 1934, the All-India Congress Committee met at Patna to set up a parliamentary board to fight elections under the Congress's aegis.

This statement is correct. In 1934, the All-India Congress Committee held a meeting in Patna. During this meeting, they established a parliamentary board with the purpose of participating in electoral politics under the Congress's leadership. This move was seen as a significant step towards formalizing the Congress's engagement with parliamentary politics.

Statement 2: A large section of the intelligentsia favoured parliamentary politics with which Gandhi was fundamentally agreed.

This statement is incorrect. Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the Indian National Congress, did not fundamentally agree with the idea of parliamentary politics. He was skeptical of the efficacy of parliamentary institutions and believed that true political change could only be achieved through mass mobilization and nonviolent resistance. Gandhi favored a more grassroots approach to politics, emphasizing the importance of Swaraj (self-rule) and village-level governance.

In conclusion, only statement 1 is correct. The All-India Congress Committee did meet in Patna in 1934 to establish a parliamentary board, but statement 2 is incorrect as Gandhi did not fundamentally agree with the idea of parliamentary politics.

The correct answer is option 'D', neither of them.

Explanation:
Let's analyze each statement separately:

1. A strong leftist trend within the Congress, represented by Nehru, was critical of both constructive work and council entry in place of the suspended civil disobedience movement.

- This statement is correct. During the Indian independence movement, there were different ideological factions within the Indian National Congress. Nehru was associated with the leftist faction, which criticized the idea of constructive work (which focused on social and economic reforms) and council entry (participation in legislative bodies) as a substitute for the suspended civil disobedience movement. The leftist faction believed in direct mass struggle and non-constitutionalist methods to achieve independence.

2. This section favored the resumption and continuation of non-constitutionalist mass struggle.

- This statement is also correct. The leftist faction, represented by Nehru, believed in non-constitutionalist methods such as mass struggle, civil disobedience, and direct action to challenge British rule. They advocated for the resumption and continuation of these methods rather than relying on constitutional means like council entry.

Since both statements are correct, the correct answer is option 'D', neither of them.

Nagpur session of Indian National Congress was held in December 1920. The session was presided over by C.R. Das. The following statements are correct about the Nagpur session of Indian National Congress:

Program of Non-Cooperation Endorsed:
The program of non-cooperation was endorsed at the Nagpur session of Indian National Congress. The Congress decided to launch a nationwide non-cooperation movement against the British government. The objective of the non-cooperation movement was to compel the British government to concede India's demand for self-government.

Provincial Congress Committees on Linguistic Basis Organized:
Another important decision taken at the Nagpur session of Indian National Congress was the organization of Provincial Congress Committees on linguistic basis. This was a significant step towards the recognition of linguistic diversity in India. The idea of linguistic states was first proposed by the Congress in the 1920s, and it was finally implemented after independence in 1956.

Congress Committed to Attend the Goal of Self-Government Through Constitutional Means:
The Nagpur session of Indian National Congress committed itself to the goal of self-government through constitutional means. The Congress leaders believed that India could achieve independence through peaceful and constitutional methods. They wanted to use the platform of the Congress to mobilize public opinion in favour of the demand for self-government.

In conclusion, the correct statements about the Nagpur session of Indian National Congress are 1 and 3 only. The session endorsed the program of non-cooperation and organized Provincial Congress Committees on linguistic basis. The Congress committed itself to the goal of self-government through constitutional means.

There are multiple factors that led to the British withdrawal from India seeming imminent by 1946. These factors include the limitations of the British strategy of conciliation and repression, demoralization among the bureaucracy and loyalist sections, and the success of nationalist forces in the struggle for hegemony.

1. Limitations of the British strategy of conciliation and repression:
- The British adopted a strategy of conciliation towards the Indian National Congress (INC) during World War II, hoping to secure Indian support for the war effort. However, this strategy proved to be inadequate in addressing the growing demands for independence.
- The repression and violence employed by the British to suppress the Quit India Movement in 1942 further alienated the Indian population and intensified the demand for independence.
- The failure of the Cripps Mission in 1942, which aimed to secure Indian cooperation in the war in exchange for limited self-government, demonstrated the limitations of the British strategy.

2. Demoralization among bureaucracy and loyalist sections:
- The Indian Civil Service (ICS) and other administrative bodies, which had traditionally been loyal to the British, began to witness a decline in morale and support for the colonial rule.
- The ICS officers, who were often seen as the backbone of British administration in India, faced challenges in maintaining law and order due to the growing unrest and nationalist movements.
- The failure of the British to address the demands for better career prospects and representation for Indians in the bureaucracy further added to the demoralization among these sections.

3. Success of nationalist forces in the struggle for hegemony:
- The Indian National Congress, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, played a crucial role in mobilizing the masses and demanding independence.
- The Quit India Movement in 1942 and subsequent mass protests showcased the strength and determination of the nationalist forces.
- The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also gained significant support and successfully articulated the demand for a separate Muslim-majority nation, which further weakened the British position in India.

In conclusion, the limitations of the British strategy, demoralization among bureaucracy and loyalist sections, and the success of nationalist forces all contributed to the British withdrawal from India seeming imminent by 1946. These factors highlighted the inability of the British to maintain control and effectively address the growing demand for independence.

Indian Government Ministers

Statement 1: Liaqat Ali Khan was the Finance Minister

- Liaqat Ali Khan was not a Finance Minister in the Indian government.
- Liaqat Ali Khan was the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Statement 2: Baldev Singh was the defence minister

- Baldev Singh was the first Defence Minister of independent India.
- He served as the Defence Minister from 1947 to 1952.
- He was also the first Indian to be appointed as the Minister of Defence.

Statement 3: C Rajagopalachari was the education minister

- C Rajagopalachari, also known as Rajaji, was the last Governor-General of India.
- He was a freedom fighter and a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress.
- He served as the Chief Minister of Madras State and also as the Governor of West Bengal.
- However, he was not the Education Minister of India.

Correct answer: All of them (Option D)

- Liaqat Ali Khan was not a Finance Minister in the Indian government, but he was a prominent political leader who played a significant role in the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan.
- Baldev Singh was the first Defence Minister of independent India, and he served as the Defence Minister from 1947 to 1952.
- C Rajagopalachari was not the Education Minister of India, but he was a prominent freedom fighter and political leader who served as the last Governor-General of India.

Hence, option D is the correct answer, as all the statements are correct in their own context.

In the provincial elections, it got a majority in most provinces except in Bengal, Sindh and Punjab. The Congress majority provinces included the NWFP and Assam which were being claimed for Pakistan.

Overview:
The Khilafat movement was a political movement in India during the early 20th century that aimed to mobilize Indian Muslims in support of the Ottoman Caliphate. It was led by the Ali brothers, Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, who were prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress. The movement emerged in response to the Treaty of Sevres and culminated in the abolition of the caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Statement 1: One of the causes of this movement was the Treaty of Sevres (August 1920), which gave parts of the Turkish homeland to Greece and other non-Muslim powers.
The Treaty of Sevres, signed in August 1920, was indeed one of the causes of the Khilafat movement. The treaty was imposed on the defeated Ottoman Empire after World War I and it resulted in the dismemberment of the empire. Under the treaty, large parts of the Turkish homeland were to be given to Greece and other non-Muslim powers. This deeply angered Muslims in India who saw it as a threat to the caliphate and the unity of the Muslim world. The treaty sparked widespread protests among Indian Muslims and galvanized them to join the Khilafat movement.

Statement 2: The movement collapsed when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished the caliphate altogether in 1924.
The second statement is also correct. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the leader of the Turkish nationalist movement, abolished the caliphate in 1924. Ataturk aimed to modernize and secularize Turkey and saw the caliphate as an obstacle to his reforms. He believed that religion should be separate from politics, and therefore abolished the caliphate, effectively ending the institution that the Khilafat movement sought to protect. With the abolition of the caliphate, the Khilafat movement lost its central cause and gradually lost momentum. The movement collapsed as its leaders struggled to find a new direction and purpose.

Conclusion:
Both statements are correct. The Treaty of Sevres, which gave parts of the Turkish homeland to Greece and other non-Muslim powers, was one of the causes of the Khilafat movement. The movement collapsed when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished the caliphate altogether in 1924.

Introduction:
The New Swarajists were a group of freedom fighters who advocated for a new form of self-rule and governance in India during the freedom struggle. They believed in the principles of non-violence, decentralization, and the empowerment of the masses.

Explanation:
Among the given options, the freedom fighter who is not considered a New Swarajist is option 'D' - None of the above. This is because all the other options mentioned - Bhulabhai Desai, Asaf Ali, and M.A. Ansari - were prominent leaders of the New Swarajist movement during the independence struggle.

Bhulabhai Desai:
Bhulabhai Desai was a prominent lawyer and politician who played a significant role in the Indian independence movement. He was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi and was actively involved in the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Salt Satyagraha. Desai was known for his commitment to the principles of non-violence and his efforts to empower the masses.

Asaf Ali:
Asaf Ali was a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress and played a crucial role in the freedom struggle. He was actively involved in various movements and protests against British rule, including the Quit India Movement. Asaf Ali also served as the President of the Indian National Congress and was known for his support for the principles of non-violence and self-governance.

M.A. Ansari:
M.A. Ansari was a prominent lawyer, politician, and social reformer who actively participated in the freedom struggle. He was associated with the Khilafat Movement and played a crucial role in mobilizing the Muslim community in support of the independence movement. Ansari believed in the principles of non-violence and worked towards the empowerment of marginalized sections of society.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, among the given options, none of the mentioned freedom fighters - Bhulabhai Desai, Asaf Ali, and M.A. Ansari - can be considered as not being New Swarajists. They were all actively involved in the New Swarajist movement and played significant roles in the Indian independence struggle.

Dalit leaders during the Freedom movement believed in the principles of justice, equality, and freedom for all. They aimed to challenge the oppressive caste system and fight for the rights and upliftment of Dalits, who were considered the lowest social group in Indian society.

Dalit leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jyotirao Phule, and Periyar E.V. Ramasamy believed that political independence from British rule alone would not solve the deep-rooted social issues faced by Dalits. They advocated for social and economic reforms to address the discrimination and oppression faced by Dalits.

These leaders called for the annihilation of caste and the establishment of a society based on equality, where all individuals, regardless of their caste, would have access to education, employment, and social dignity. They criticized the upper-caste dominance in society and sought to challenge the Brahminical hegemony.

Dalit leaders actively participated in the Freedom movement and mobilized Dalit communities to fight for their rights. They organized Dalit conferences, founded political parties, and demanded reserved seats in legislatures to ensure political representation for Dalits.

They also emphasized the need for land reforms, as Dalits were mostly landless agricultural laborers and faced exploitation by upper-caste landlords. Dalit leaders believed that land redistribution and economic empowerment were essential for the upliftment of Dalits and the eradication of caste-based discrimination.

Overall, Dalit leaders during the Freedom movement were driven by a vision of a just and equal society, where no individual would be discriminated against based on their caste. They played a crucial role in shaping the social and political landscape of India and continue to inspire the Dalit movement for social justice and equality.