Q. 1. Read the following extract carefully and answer the questions that follow :
“No, no! You can never be ours”
This is the third story the researcher related; I still vividly remember a man I met in Lahore in 1992. He mistook me to be a Pakistani studying aborad. He liked me for some reason. He urged me to return home after completing my studies to serve the quam (nation). I told him I shall do so but, at some stage in the conversation, I added that my citizenship happens to be Indian. All of a sudden his tone changed and much as he was restraining himself, he blurted out.
“Oh, Indian! I had thought you were Pakistani”, I tried my best to impress upon him that I always see myself as South Asian.” No, no! You can never be ours. Your people wiped out my entire village in 1947, we are sworn enemies and shall always remain so”.
(i) What did the person advise the researcher who met in London in 1992? Why did he say like this? Explain.
(ii) How did the person react on knowing that the researcher was an Indian?
(iii) What did the Indian try to explain?
(iv) Who was right and why? Explain.
Ans. (i) The researcher was advised to return home after completing his studies to serve the nation.
(ii) His voice changed all of a sudden and his tone changed.
(iii)The Indian tried to explain that he always looked upon himself as a South Asian.
(iv) The researcher was right as he did not show any specific association and he looked and attached himself to a broader outlook.
Q.2.Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:
“Without a shot being fired”
This is what Moon wrote:
For over twenty-four hours riotous mobs were allowed to rage through this great commercial city unchallenged and unchecked. The finest bazaars were burnt to the ground without a shot being fired to disperse the incendiaries (i.e. those who stirred up conflict). The … District Magistrate marched his (large police) force into the city and marched it out again without making any effective use of it at all …
(a) How did Amritsar become a scene of bloodshed in 1947?
(b) Analyse the attitude of the soldiers and policemen in towards the mob.
(c) Interpret the reactions of the British administration to the law and order situation in Amritsar in March 1947.
Ans. (a) (i) For over twenty-four hour riotous mobs were allowed to rage through this great commercial city challenged and unchecked.
(ii) The finest bazaars were burnt to the ground without a shot being fired to disperse the incendiaries.
(b) (i) The police failed to fire even a single shot when arson and killings took place.
(ii) police forced into the city and marched it out again.
(c) (i) Britishers were unwilling to take decisions and hesitant to intervene, when panic stricken people appealed for help.
(ii) Britishers asked people to contact Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai patel or M.A. Jinnah. Nobody knew who could exercise authority and power.
(iii)Indian soldiers and policemen came to act as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs.
Q.3. Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:
“A voice in the wilderness”
Mahatma Gandhi knew that this was “a voice in the wilderness” but he nevertheless continued to oppose the idea of Partition:
But what a tragic change we see today is that I wish the day may come again when Hindus and Muslims will do nothing without mutual consultation. I am tormented by the question what I can do to hasten the coming of that day. I appeal to the League not to regard any Indian as its enemy … Hindus and Muslims are born of the same soil. They have the same blood, eat the same food, drink the same water and speak the same language.
SPEECH AT PRAYER MEETING, 7 SEPTEMBER 1946,
CWMG, VOL. 92, P.139
But I am firmly convinced that the Pakistan demand as put forward by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possible warring groups are enemies alike of Islam and India. They may cut me to pieces but they cannot make me subscribe to something which I consider to be wrong.
HARIJAN, 26 SEPTEMBER 1946, CWMG, VOL. 92, P.229
(a) Highlight the concern of Mahatma Gandhi on the idea of partition.
(b) “Mahatma Gandhi knew that his voice was a voice in the wilderness.” Analyse the reasons behind it.
(c) How did Gandhiji try to restore communal harmony amongst the masses of India?
Ans. (a) (i) Gandhiji was disappointed to see the communal violence on the eve of partition of India city unchallenged and unchecked.
(ii) He appealed the political parties for communal harmony.
(b) (i) He knew that political parties and communal fundamentalist were not listened his plea for unity but then also he tried to bring harmony.
(ii) He wanted peace and integration but the condition was miserable.
(c) (i) Gandhiji combined religiosity with reason.
(ii) He gave importance to tolerance, love and nonviolence which would totally negate religious nationalism and exclusivist approach.
(iii)Appeal to the League not to regard any Indian as its enemy … Hindus and Muslims are born of the same soil. They have the same blood, eat the same food, drink the same water and speak the same language.
Q.4. Explain how Indian partition was a culmination of communal politics that started developing in the opening decades of the 20th century.
OR
Explain why some scholars see partition of India as the culmination of communal politics.
OR
‘‘The communal politics that started during the early decades of the 20th century was largely responsible for the partition of the country.’’ Examine the statement.
Ans. Partition of India was culmination of communal politics that stated in the opening decades of the 20th century.
(a) Separate electorates given by the British to the Muslims in 1909 and expanded in 1919.
(b) Sectarian slogans used and favours distributed on the basis of religion in the 1920s.
(c) Tabligh and Shuddhi movements.
(d) Music before Mosque, cow protection movement, etc.
(e) Communal tensions and riots deepened the differences between the two communities.
(f) Outcome of 1937 elections.
(g) Muslim League demanded a joint government in United provinces and was rejected by the Indian National Congress.
(h) Jinnah’s demand that the league should be recognised as the sole spokesperson of the Muslims and other developments.
(i) Demand for communal veto in the Executive Council by Jinnah.
(j) provincial elections of 1946.
(k) Cabinet Mission plan.
(l) Direct Action Day.
(m)partition of India and communal riots.
(n) Role played by Gandhiji.
Detailed Answer:
Separate electorates meant that Muslims could now elect their own members in designated constituencies. This created a temptation for politicians working within this system to use sectarian slogans and gain from politics by distributing favours to their own religious groups. Communal identities were consolidated by a host of other developments in the 20th century. During 1920s and 1930s, tension grew around a number of issues. The Muslims were angered by ‘Music before Mosques”, by the cow protection movement and by the efforts of the Arya Samaj to bring back the Hindus fold (shuddi) those who had recently converted to Islam. In the election of 1937, for the provincial legislatures, the Congress won the majority and Muslim League faired poorly. The Muslim League wanted to form a joint government with Congress, but was rejected and this made the Muslim League convinced that if India is to be united, then Muslims will remain only a minority and they will not get political power. In the provincial elections held again in 1946, Congress swept the general constituencies and Muslim League also won in their constituencies. Though the cabinet plan was accepted initially by all parties, it was rejected later as it was based on mutually opposed interpretations of the plan. After withdrawing its support for the Cabinet Mission, the League decided on “Direct Action” for winning its pakistan demand. Riots broke out and there was bloodshed everywhere, which continued for about a year. Amidst all this turmoil, efforts of one man, Gandhiji, at restoring communal harmony bore fruit.
Q.5. Explain the outcome of the provincial elections of 1937 and explain the role of congress ministries and Muslim League in it.
Ans. In 1937, elections to the provincial legislatures were held for the first time and only 10-12% of the population enjoyed the right to vote. Congress won the elections forming government in 7 out of 11 of them. The League failed to win a single seat. In the United provinces, the Muslim League wanted to form the government with the Congress but it was rejected. It made them realise that if India is to be united, they will be a minority and also would be difficult to gain political power. The Congress ministers also contributed to the widening rift. Congress rejected the Muslim League’s proposal for a coalition government because the League supported landlordism, while the Congress wanted to abolish it. Secondly the Congress leaders insisted on secularism, it was not shared by all the party hierarchy. Maulana Azad, an important Congress leader, mentioned in 1937 that, the Congress members were not allowed to join the League, but Congressmen were active in the Hindu Mahasabha, in Central provinces (Madhya pradesh). So, in December 1938, Congress announced that its members could not be a member in Mahasabha. This was also a period that the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were gaining strength. The latter spread from Nagpur to the United provinces, punjab and later to other parts of the country in the 1939. The RSS had trained disciplined cadres who pledged to an ideology of Hindu nationalism, convinced that India was a land of the Hindus.
Q.6. Explain how the demand for Pakistan was formalised gradually.
Ans. The Congress accepted the proposal of the partition as a necessary evil. It felt that partition was the only way out of the chaos and anarachy caused by communal violence instigated by the Muslim League as a result of Direct Action. Due to the bitter experience of working together with the members of the Muslim League under interim government, Congress members were convinced that a secular and democratic republic could be set up only after partition. Communal identities were consolidated by a host of other developments in the early twentieth century. During the 1920s and early 1930s, tension grew around a number of issues. The Muslims were angered by “Music before Mosque”, by the cow protection movement and by the efforts of the Arya Samaj to bring back to the Hindu fold (Shuddhi) those who had recently converted to Islam. The Hindus were angered by the rapid spread of tabligh (propaganda) and tanzim (organization) after 1923. In the above circumstances, communal hatred grew day by day and ultimately pakistan evolved.
Q. 7 Read the following excerpts and answer the questions that follow:
“A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS”
Mahatma Gandhi knew that his was “a voice in the wilderness” but he nevertheless continued to oppose the idea of Partition.
But what a tragic change we see today. I wish the day may come again when Hindus and Muslims will do nothing without mutual consultation. I am day and night tormented by the questions I can do to hasten the coming of that day. I appeal to the League not to regard any Indian as its enemy... Hindus and Muslims are born of the same soil. They have the same blood, eat the same food, drink the same water and speak the same language.
SPEECH AT PRAYER MEETING, 7 SEPTEMBER 1946, CWMG, VOL 92, P.139
But I am firmly convinced that the Pakistan demand as put forward by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possible warring groups are enemies alike of Islam and India. They may cut me to pieces but they cannot make me subscribe to something which I consider to be wrong.
HARIJAN, 26 SEPTEMBER 1946, CWMG VOL. 92, P. 229
(i) Explain what did Gandhiji wish to see again.
(ii) Explain how the demand for Pakistan was un-Islamic.
(iii) Why did Mahatma Gandhi say that his was a voice in the wilderness? Explain.
Ans. (i) Gandhiji wished that the day would come when the Hindus and the Muslims would do nothing without mutual consultation. He was regularly Questioned as what he can do to hasten the coming of the day.
(ii) Gandhiji, was firmly convinced that the demand put by the Muslim League is un-islamic and sinful. Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the humanity.
(iii)Gandhiji knew that his voice was the voice in wilderness because there was anger between the two communities and people were killing one another for religion. The country was facing communal riots all over. The Muslim League had decided for a separate pakistan and many did not accept the Gandhi’s Idea. The partition was inevitable.
Q. 8. Read the following excerpts and answer the questions that follow:
A SMALL BASKET OF GRAPES
This is what Khushdeva Singh writes about his experience during one of his visits in Karachi in 1949:
My friends took me to a room at the airport where we all sat down and talked….. and had lunch together. I had to travel from Karachi to London. at 2.30 a.m……. At 5.00 p.m. … I told my friends that they had given their time so generously I thought it would be too much for them to wait for the whole night and suggested that they must spare themselves but nobody left until it was dinner time…..
Then they said they were leaving and that I must have a little rest before emplaning…. I got up about 1.45 a.m. and when I opened the door, I saw that all of them were still there ….. They all accompanied me to the plane, and before parting, presented me with a small basket of grapes. I had no words to express my gratitude for the overwhelming affection with which I was treated and the happiness this stopover had given me.
(i) Give a brief introduction of Khushdeva Singh.
(ii) How did his friends show their affection for him?
(iii) Explain how Khushdeva Singh was considered seen as a symbol of humanity and harmony.
(iv) How did oral history help historians in reconstructing events of the past?
Ans: (i) Khushdeva Singh was a Sikh doctor, specialising in the treatment of tuberculosis and was posted at Dharampura i.e. present day Himachal pradesh.
(ii) He and his friends had lunch together and he were highly impressed by their affection. His friends stayed with him till he boarded the plane and presented him with a basket of grapes.
(iii)He worked day and night and was involved in this work. As a doctor, he provided the rare healing touch, food, shelter, love and security to many migrants like Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, etc. Hence, he was seen as a symbol of humanity and mutual harmony.
(iv) Oral history helps historians in reconstructing events of the past experiences in detail. It enables historians to write clear description of what happened to people during the events such as partition. It also allows historians to broaden the boundaries of their discipline by narrating the experiences of the poor and the powerless.
Q.9. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of oral history. Mention any four sources from which the history of partition has been constructed.
Ans. Oral history helps us to grasp experiences and memories in detail. It enables scholars to write richly textured, vivid accounts of what happened to people during the partition. It is not possible to get such information from government documents. They tell us less about the government decisions on the day–to–day experiences of those who were affected by the partition. Oral history also allows historians to broaden the boundaries of their discipline by rescuing from oblivion the experiences of the poor and the weak. Still, many historians still remain skeptical of oral history. They dismiss it because oral data seems to lack concreteness and the chronology they yield may be imprecise. Historians argue that the uniqueness of personal experience makes generalisation difficult, and one witness worth nothing. They also think oral accounts are concerned with tangential issues.
The small individual experiences which remain in memory are irrelevant to the unfolding of larger processes of history.
The four sources from which the history of partition has been constructed: Diaries: These help us to grasp experiences and memories in detail. It enables scholars to write rich textured and vivid accounts of what happened to people during the partition. It is not possible to get such information from government. They deal with policy and other state sponsored schemes. In case of partition, government reports and files as well as the personal writings of high level functionaries throw ample light on negotiations between the British and the major political parties.
Memories and experiences: people, in large numbers, view partition in terms of suffering and challenges of the times. For them, it meant the changes that happened during the partition, emotional, psychological and social changes.
Oral narration: Oral history also allows historians to broaden the boundaries of their discipline by rescuing from oblivion the experiences of the poor and the powerless. The oral history of partition has succeeded in exploring the experiences of women and men, that have been ignored, mentioned only in passing, the mainstream history.
Family histories: The agonies faced by the families tell us the suffering and trauma during the partition. First hand, written accounts are also important sources to understand the experience of those who lived through the difficult times.
