When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, at that time Congress President was?a)K. Kamrajb)Lai Bahadur Shastric)S.K. Patild)Morarji DesaiCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 12 Exam > Class 12 Questions > When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, at tha...

Join the Discussion on the App

When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, at that time Congress President was?

a)
K. Kamraj
b)
Lai Bahadur Shastri
c)
S.K. Patil
d)
Morarji Desai

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Political Science: CUET Mock Test - 5

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, at that time Congress President...

Kumaraswami Kamaraj, popularly known as Kamarajar was an Indian independence activist and politician who served as the Chief Minister of Madras State from 13 April 1954 to 2 October 1963.

Free Test

FREE

Political Science: CUET Mock Test - 5
40 Ques | 45 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Class 12 tests

Community Answer

When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, at that time Congress President...

When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, the Congress President at that time was K. Kamraj.

Explanation:

K. Kamraj, also known as Kamraj, was a prominent Indian politician and a member of the Indian National Congress. He played a significant role in the Indian independence movement and later served as the President of the Indian National Congress.

During the time of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru's passing, K. Kamraj was serving as the Congress President. This was a crucial period in Indian politics as Nehru had been the Prime Minister of India since its independence in 1947, and his demise marked the end of an era.

K. Kamraj's tenure as the Congress President was from 1963 to 1969. He was a strong leader and instrumental in organizing the Congress party during a time of transition. His political acumen and ability to unite different factions within the party played a crucial role in maintaining stability and continuity after Nehru's death.

K. Kamraj's leadership style and organizational skills were widely appreciated, and he was known for his ability to connect with the grassroots level of the party. During his tenure as the Congress President, he implemented the "Kamraj Plan," which aimed at rejuvenating the party by encouraging senior Congress leaders to serve in the government and allowing younger leaders to take on party responsibilities.

K. Kamraj's contribution to the Congress party and Indian politics, particularly during the transitional phase after Nehru's passing, was significant. He played a vital role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the party and maintaining its unity during a challenging period.

In conclusion, when Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru passed away, K. Kamraj was the Congress President, and his leadership during this time was crucial in maintaining stability and continuity within the party.

Share via Whatsapp

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam

Similar Class 12 Doubts

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the opposition

View answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. United States established a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. In pursuance of the same an executive order is signed to remove Americans of Iranian, Syrian, Yemeni and Libyan Origin. If this is true, then, based on the authors reasoning and precedents cited in the passage above, will the order stand the scrutiny of law

View answer

____ was the congress President at its Lahore Session.

View answer

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitutions long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.Q. Which of the following serves as an evidence for the participation of the Congress in the second conference?