Day-731
Quiz-summary
0 of 5 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Information
DAILY MCQ
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 5 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Answered
- Review
-
Question 1 of 5
1. Question
1. With reference to the Subsidiary Alliance, consider the following statements:
1. To enter into a Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian king had to disband his military forces and accept British forces in his region.
2. Forming alliances with any other foreign country was prohibited for the Indian state.
3. The British government exercised the right to interfere in the internal spheres of states.
How many of the above statements are correct?Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: To enter a Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian king had to disband his military forces and accept British forces in his region.
Statement 2 is correct: Forming alliances with any other foreign country was prohibited for the Indian state.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Under the subsidiary alliance, British committed not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Indian state, although this promise was often unfulfilled.
Some Other Characteristics of the Subsidiary Alliance System:
● The ruler of an Allied Indian State needed approval for a permanent British force stationed within his territory, along with paying a subsidy for its maintenance in the subsidiary alliance plan.
● The State was obligated to cover the expenses of the British troops; failure to pay resulted in the loss of land to the British. In return, the British pledged to defend the Indian state from foreign attacks or internal uprisings.
● The state could not employ foreign nationals without Company consultation; existing foreign hires had to be terminated upon alliance signing to limit French influence.
● Political ties within Indian states were prohibited without British sanction.
● British Residents were to be accepted at the state’s headquarters.
● Consequently, Indian kings relinquished control over foreign affairs and the military, losing most autonomy and becoming a British ‘protectorate.’
Additional information:
The Indian state was prohibited from forming alliances with other foreign powers and was limited to employing Englishmen as foreign advisors. This policy aimed to diminish French influence. Ultimately, the Indian ruler’s authority over military and foreign affairs was greatly diminished, transforming them into a British “protectorate.” A British representative was also placed at the Indian court.
Stages of Subsidiary Alliances System
1) First Stage: The British offered a standing army to native leaders in exchange for a fixed capital payment.
2) Second Stage: The British agreed to maintain a permanent military force for their partner in return for an annual payment.
3) Third Stage: The British supported a smaller subsidiary force for their ally’s assistance within their borders, in exchange for a fixed annual payment.
4) The Last Stage: Lord Wellesley initiated the establishment of a constant and stationed subsidiary force within the partner’s territory.
Advantages of Subsidiary Alliances
● The British East India Company’s resources grew through the subsidiary system, allowing them to become the dominant force in India.
● Enhanced military power and influence were gained at the expense of local authority.
● Reduced risk of damage from wars, as conflicts were primarily fought within the allied states.
Disadvantages of Subsidiary Alliances
● Valuable territories and resources were progressively seized from original Indian rulers by the British.
● The financial burden of maintaining the subsidiary force fell on the original state’s inhabitants, leading to poverty.
● Unemployment increased due to surplus soldiers, causing disturbances and disruptions.
● Local rulers lost their authority, weakening Indian patriotism and facilitating British control.Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: To enter a Subsidiary Alliance, an Indian king had to disband his military forces and accept British forces in his region.
Statement 2 is correct: Forming alliances with any other foreign country was prohibited for the Indian state.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Under the subsidiary alliance, British committed not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Indian state, although this promise was often unfulfilled.
Some Other Characteristics of the Subsidiary Alliance System:
● The ruler of an Allied Indian State needed approval for a permanent British force stationed within his territory, along with paying a subsidy for its maintenance in the subsidiary alliance plan.
● The State was obligated to cover the expenses of the British troops; failure to pay resulted in the loss of land to the British. In return, the British pledged to defend the Indian state from foreign attacks or internal uprisings.
● The state could not employ foreign nationals without Company consultation; existing foreign hires had to be terminated upon alliance signing to limit French influence.
● Political ties within Indian states were prohibited without British sanction.
● British Residents were to be accepted at the state’s headquarters.
● Consequently, Indian kings relinquished control over foreign affairs and the military, losing most autonomy and becoming a British ‘protectorate.’
Additional information:
The Indian state was prohibited from forming alliances with other foreign powers and was limited to employing Englishmen as foreign advisors. This policy aimed to diminish French influence. Ultimately, the Indian ruler’s authority over military and foreign affairs was greatly diminished, transforming them into a British “protectorate.” A British representative was also placed at the Indian court.
Stages of Subsidiary Alliances System
1) First Stage: The British offered a standing army to native leaders in exchange for a fixed capital payment.
2) Second Stage: The British agreed to maintain a permanent military force for their partner in return for an annual payment.
3) Third Stage: The British supported a smaller subsidiary force for their ally’s assistance within their borders, in exchange for a fixed annual payment.
4) The Last Stage: Lord Wellesley initiated the establishment of a constant and stationed subsidiary force within the partner’s territory.
Advantages of Subsidiary Alliances
● The British East India Company’s resources grew through the subsidiary system, allowing them to become the dominant force in India.
● Enhanced military power and influence were gained at the expense of local authority.
● Reduced risk of damage from wars, as conflicts were primarily fought within the allied states.
Disadvantages of Subsidiary Alliances
● Valuable territories and resources were progressively seized from original Indian rulers by the British.
● The financial burden of maintaining the subsidiary force fell on the original state’s inhabitants, leading to poverty.
● Unemployment increased due to surplus soldiers, causing disturbances and disruptions.
● Local rulers lost their authority, weakening Indian patriotism and facilitating British control. -
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
2. Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Indian National Army (INA) mostly consisted of indentured labourers who were captured by the British army after the abolishment of slavery in the 19th century.
Statement-II: The INA was formed during World War II to help in the independence movement of India against British rule.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?Correct
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The army mostly comprised Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) captured by the Japanese during their Southeast Asia campaign. The Japanese thought that a native Indian force would be a powerful weapon in its planned conquest of India.
Statement 2 is correct: The INA was formed on February 17, 1942, two days after the British surrendered to Japanese forces in Singapore. This army was formed during World War II to help in the independence movement of India against British rule.
Additional information:
● The Indian National army was formed under Mohan Singh who was an officer in the British-Indian Army captured in the Malayan Campaign. However, disagreements between the Japanese and the INA (Mohan Singh in particular) led to the disbandment of the INA in 1942. The INA was formed again under the guidance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
● It was decided at a conference in Bangkok (also under Japanese occupation at the time) to incorporate the INA into an Indian Independence League, the chairman of which would be Rash Behari Bose himself. In 1942, he founded the League in Tokyo.
● When the Japanese approached Subhash Bose to lead the INA, he was prepared. He travelled to Singapore and met Rashbehari Bose, who gladly handed over control and leadership of the Indian Independence League and the INA to Subhash in July 1943.
● Southeast Asia and Japan were the major refugee nations for the exiled Indian Nationalists before the outbreak of World War II.
● 70,000 Indian troops were stationed along the Malayan coast at the start of World War II in Southeast Asia.
● After the Japanese army succeeded in their campaign on the Malayan coast, many Indian soldiers were taken as Prisoners of War. Nearly 45,000 soldiers alone were captured after the fall of Singapore.
● The degrading conditions in the camps for the PoWs and the strong resentment towards the British army led to the rise of volunteers that wanted to join the INA.
● An Indian Nationalist, Rashbehari Bose was given the overall leadership of the army.
● The INA received whole-hearted support from the Japanese Imperial Army as well as from the people belonging to the Indian ethnicity living in Southeast Asia.
Indian National Army – Second Phase
● The second phase began with Subhas Bose’s arrival in Singapore. But, before that, in June 1943, Subhas Chandra Bose (as Abid Hussain) arrived in Tokyo and met with Japanese Prime Minister Tojo.
● Rashbehari Bose, another great freedom fighter, should also be recognized here. Following the failure of his revolutionary activities, he fled to Japan in 1915.
● Rashbehari Bose eventually became a naturalized citizen of Japan. He worked hard to pique the Japanese interest in the Indian independence movement.
● He became involved in Pan-Asian circles, established the Indian Club of Tokyo, and lectured on the evils of Western imperialism.
● Rashbehari Bose was ecstatic when Mohan Singh established the Indian National Army in Singapore, and he immediately left Tokyo for Southeast Asia.
● It should be noted that Subhas Chandra Bose was able to build the Indian National Army thanks to the organizational work done by Rashbehari Bose.
● On August 25, Subhas Bose was appointed Supreme Commander of the INA. Subhas Bose formed the Provisional Government for Free India in Singapore on October 21, 1943, with H. C. Chatterjee (Finance), M.A. Aiyar (Broadcasting), Lakshmi Swaminathan (Women Department), and others.Incorrect
Answer: D
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The army mostly comprised Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) captured by the Japanese during their Southeast Asia campaign. The Japanese thought that a native Indian force would be a powerful weapon in its planned conquest of India.
Statement 2 is correct: The INA was formed on February 17, 1942, two days after the British surrendered to Japanese forces in Singapore. This army was formed during World War II to help in the independence movement of India against British rule.
Additional information:
● The Indian National army was formed under Mohan Singh who was an officer in the British-Indian Army captured in the Malayan Campaign. However, disagreements between the Japanese and the INA (Mohan Singh in particular) led to the disbandment of the INA in 1942. The INA was formed again under the guidance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
● It was decided at a conference in Bangkok (also under Japanese occupation at the time) to incorporate the INA into an Indian Independence League, the chairman of which would be Rash Behari Bose himself. In 1942, he founded the League in Tokyo.
● When the Japanese approached Subhash Bose to lead the INA, he was prepared. He travelled to Singapore and met Rashbehari Bose, who gladly handed over control and leadership of the Indian Independence League and the INA to Subhash in July 1943.
● Southeast Asia and Japan were the major refugee nations for the exiled Indian Nationalists before the outbreak of World War II.
● 70,000 Indian troops were stationed along the Malayan coast at the start of World War II in Southeast Asia.
● After the Japanese army succeeded in their campaign on the Malayan coast, many Indian soldiers were taken as Prisoners of War. Nearly 45,000 soldiers alone were captured after the fall of Singapore.
● The degrading conditions in the camps for the PoWs and the strong resentment towards the British army led to the rise of volunteers that wanted to join the INA.
● An Indian Nationalist, Rashbehari Bose was given the overall leadership of the army.
● The INA received whole-hearted support from the Japanese Imperial Army as well as from the people belonging to the Indian ethnicity living in Southeast Asia.
Indian National Army – Second Phase
● The second phase began with Subhas Bose’s arrival in Singapore. But, before that, in June 1943, Subhas Chandra Bose (as Abid Hussain) arrived in Tokyo and met with Japanese Prime Minister Tojo.
● Rashbehari Bose, another great freedom fighter, should also be recognized here. Following the failure of his revolutionary activities, he fled to Japan in 1915.
● Rashbehari Bose eventually became a naturalized citizen of Japan. He worked hard to pique the Japanese interest in the Indian independence movement.
● He became involved in Pan-Asian circles, established the Indian Club of Tokyo, and lectured on the evils of Western imperialism.
● Rashbehari Bose was ecstatic when Mohan Singh established the Indian National Army in Singapore, and he immediately left Tokyo for Southeast Asia.
● It should be noted that Subhas Chandra Bose was able to build the Indian National Army thanks to the organizational work done by Rashbehari Bose.
● On August 25, Subhas Bose was appointed Supreme Commander of the INA. Subhas Bose formed the Provisional Government for Free India in Singapore on October 21, 1943, with H. C. Chatterjee (Finance), M.A. Aiyar (Broadcasting), Lakshmi Swaminathan (Women Department), and others. -
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
3. Consider the following statements:
1. Delhi Durbar was a mass assembly held to commemorate the accession of a new British monarch to the title Empress or Emperor of India.
2. Delhi Durbar was organised thrice during the colonial rule.
3. Delhi Durbar of 1903 was the only time when a sovereign Queen Victoria attended the durbar.
How many of the statements given above are correct?Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Delhi Durbar, an Indian imperial-style mass assembly was held to commemorate the accession of a new British monarch to the title Empress or Emperor of India. The event involved military processions, elephants, and magnificent carriages, as well as a host of rulers of the Indian princely states paying homage to the British Crown in recognition of its sovereignty over large parts of the subcontinent.
Statement 2 is correct: Delhi Durbar, also known as the Imperial Durbar, was held three times, in 1877, 1903, and 1911, at the height of the British Empire.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Queen Victoria (r. 1837-1901) did not attend the 1877 Delhi Durbar in person but was represented by the viceroy, the 1st Earl of Lytton. Similarly, in the 1903 durbar, another viceroy represented King Edward VII (r. 1900-1910). The 1911 durbar was the most spectacular of all as King George V (r. 1910-1936) attended the event in person.
Additional information:
The Durbar of 1877:
● The Durbar of 1877 called the “Proclamation Durbar”, for which the organisation was undertaken by Thomas Henry Thornton, was held beginning on 1 January 1877 to proclaim Queen Victoria as Empress of India by the British.
● The 1877 Durbar was largely an official event and not a popular occasion with mass participation like later durbars in 1903 and 1911. It was attended by Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, maharajas, nawabs and intellectuals.
The Durbar of 1903:
● The durbar was held to celebrate the succession of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra as Emperor and Empress of India. The two full weeks of festivities were devised in meticulous detail by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India.
● It was a dazzling display of pomp, power, and split-second timing. Neither the earlier Delhi Durbar of 1877, nor the later Durbar held there in 1911, could match the pageantry of Lord Curzon’s 1903 festivities. In a few short months at the end of 1902, a deserted plain was transformed into an elaborate tented city, complete with temporary light railway to bring crowds of spectators out from Delhi, a post office with its own stamps, telephone and telegraphic facilities, a variety of stores, a police force with specially designed uniforms, a hospital, a magistrate’s court and complex sanitation, drainage, and electric light installations.
● Souvenir guidebooks were sold and maps of the camping ground distributed. Marketing opportunities were craftily exploited. A special Delhi Durbar Medal was struck, as part of the celebrations.
The Durbar of 1911:
● On 22 March 1911, a royal proclamation announced that the Durbar would be held in December to commemorate the coronation in Britain a few months earlier of King George V and Queen Mary and allow their proclamation as Emperor and Empress of India.
● Every governor and all the rulers of princely states in India were summoned to pay obeisance.
● Perhaps to ensure goodwill and, more importantly, good attendance, many Indian rulers were awarded all manner of titles and membership to knightly orders prior to the big event. Such medals and awards could then be worn with pride in the usual procession of homage to the British Crown.
● The 1911 durbar was also the occasion to announce two important administrative changes. The first announcement was the reversal of the controversial policy to partition Bengal and the second was the official change of capital from Kolkata (Calcutta) to Delhi.Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: Delhi Durbar, an Indian imperial-style mass assembly was held to commemorate the accession of a new British monarch to the title Empress or Emperor of India. The event involved military processions, elephants, and magnificent carriages, as well as a host of rulers of the Indian princely states paying homage to the British Crown in recognition of its sovereignty over large parts of the subcontinent.
Statement 2 is correct: Delhi Durbar, also known as the Imperial Durbar, was held three times, in 1877, 1903, and 1911, at the height of the British Empire.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Queen Victoria (r. 1837-1901) did not attend the 1877 Delhi Durbar in person but was represented by the viceroy, the 1st Earl of Lytton. Similarly, in the 1903 durbar, another viceroy represented King Edward VII (r. 1900-1910). The 1911 durbar was the most spectacular of all as King George V (r. 1910-1936) attended the event in person.
Additional information:
The Durbar of 1877:
● The Durbar of 1877 called the “Proclamation Durbar”, for which the organisation was undertaken by Thomas Henry Thornton, was held beginning on 1 January 1877 to proclaim Queen Victoria as Empress of India by the British.
● The 1877 Durbar was largely an official event and not a popular occasion with mass participation like later durbars in 1903 and 1911. It was attended by Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, maharajas, nawabs and intellectuals.
The Durbar of 1903:
● The durbar was held to celebrate the succession of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra as Emperor and Empress of India. The two full weeks of festivities were devised in meticulous detail by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India.
● It was a dazzling display of pomp, power, and split-second timing. Neither the earlier Delhi Durbar of 1877, nor the later Durbar held there in 1911, could match the pageantry of Lord Curzon’s 1903 festivities. In a few short months at the end of 1902, a deserted plain was transformed into an elaborate tented city, complete with temporary light railway to bring crowds of spectators out from Delhi, a post office with its own stamps, telephone and telegraphic facilities, a variety of stores, a police force with specially designed uniforms, a hospital, a magistrate’s court and complex sanitation, drainage, and electric light installations.
● Souvenir guidebooks were sold and maps of the camping ground distributed. Marketing opportunities were craftily exploited. A special Delhi Durbar Medal was struck, as part of the celebrations.
The Durbar of 1911:
● On 22 March 1911, a royal proclamation announced that the Durbar would be held in December to commemorate the coronation in Britain a few months earlier of King George V and Queen Mary and allow their proclamation as Emperor and Empress of India.
● Every governor and all the rulers of princely states in India were summoned to pay obeisance.
● Perhaps to ensure goodwill and, more importantly, good attendance, many Indian rulers were awarded all manner of titles and membership to knightly orders prior to the big event. Such medals and awards could then be worn with pride in the usual procession of homage to the British Crown.
● The 1911 durbar was also the occasion to announce two important administrative changes. The first announcement was the reversal of the controversial policy to partition Bengal and the second was the official change of capital from Kolkata (Calcutta) to Delhi. -
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
4. Consider the following statements regarding the All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC):
1. The formation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919 acted as a catalyst for its formation.
2. Lala Lajpat Rai was elected as the first general secretary of AITUC.
3. AITUC in its second session in Jharia had adopted a resolution of Swaraj years before the Congress adopted such resolution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: AITUC was founded on 31st October 1920 and the formation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919 acted as a catalyst for it. Even though a British colony at the time, India was one of the founding members of the ILO and also became a permanent member of the Governing Body in 1922 as one of the ‘chief countries of industrial importance’. The inception of the ILO accelerated the formation of representative organisations of employers and of workers in India. The All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) establishment aided in the democratic election of workers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Dewan Chaman Lal was elected as the first general secretary of AITUC. Lala Lajpat Rai became the first president of the AITUC and Joseph Baptista its vice president.
Statement 3 is correct: AITUC in its second session in 1921 in Jharia had adopted a resolution of Swaraj (Complete independence from British rule), almost eight years before the Congress adopted such resolution in 1929.
Additional information:
● Cause of Formation: Many people connected with labour realised that there was a need for a central organisation of labour to coordinate the works of the trade unions all over India. The members selected from AITUC represented the Indian Labour at the ILO.
● Leaders Involved: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, N.M. Joshi, B. P. Wadia, Diwan Chaman Lal, Lala Lajpat Rai and Joseph Baptista were the main leaders behind the formation of AITUC.
Lajpat Rai was the first to link capitalism with imperialism: “imperialism and militarism are the twin children of capitalism.”
● Ideology of AITUC: In the beginning, the AITUC was influenced by social democratic ideas of the British Labour Party. The Gandhian philosophy of non-violence, trusteeship and class-collaboration had enormous influence on AITUC.
Aftermath:
● In the aftermath of second World War the AITUC played significant role in the foundation of World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), in the conference held in London with 204 delegates and observers representing 670 million workers from all parts of the world.
● AITUC was represented by S.A. Dange, R.A. Khedgikar and Sudhindra Pramanik.Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: AITUC was founded on 31st October 1920 and the formation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919 acted as a catalyst for it. Even though a British colony at the time, India was one of the founding members of the ILO and also became a permanent member of the Governing Body in 1922 as one of the ‘chief countries of industrial importance’. The inception of the ILO accelerated the formation of representative organisations of employers and of workers in India. The All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) establishment aided in the democratic election of workers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Dewan Chaman Lal was elected as the first general secretary of AITUC. Lala Lajpat Rai became the first president of the AITUC and Joseph Baptista its vice president.
Statement 3 is correct: AITUC in its second session in 1921 in Jharia had adopted a resolution of Swaraj (Complete independence from British rule), almost eight years before the Congress adopted such resolution in 1929.
Additional information:
● Cause of Formation: Many people connected with labour realised that there was a need for a central organisation of labour to coordinate the works of the trade unions all over India. The members selected from AITUC represented the Indian Labour at the ILO.
● Leaders Involved: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, N.M. Joshi, B. P. Wadia, Diwan Chaman Lal, Lala Lajpat Rai and Joseph Baptista were the main leaders behind the formation of AITUC.
Lajpat Rai was the first to link capitalism with imperialism: “imperialism and militarism are the twin children of capitalism.”
● Ideology of AITUC: In the beginning, the AITUC was influenced by social democratic ideas of the British Labour Party. The Gandhian philosophy of non-violence, trusteeship and class-collaboration had enormous influence on AITUC.
Aftermath:
● In the aftermath of second World War the AITUC played significant role in the foundation of World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), in the conference held in London with 204 delegates and observers representing 670 million workers from all parts of the world.
● AITUC was represented by S.A. Dange, R.A. Khedgikar and Sudhindra Pramanik. -
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
5. With reference to the Nehru Report, 1928, consider the following statements:
1. It was drafted by an All-Parties Conference committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with Tej Bahadur Sapru as secretary.
2. The primary goal of the report was to grant India dominion status within the British Commonwealth.
3. It proposed joint electorates with seats reserved for minorities in legislatures.
How many of the statements given above are correct?Correct
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Motilal Nehru Report 1928 was drafted by an All-Parties Conference committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with his son Jawaharlal Nehru serving as secretary. Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mangal Singh, M S Aney, Subhas Chandra Bose, Shuaib Qureshi, and G R Pradhan were also members.
Statement 2 is correct: The primary goal of the Nehru Report was to grant India dominion status within the British Commonwealth. Dominion status should be granted to India, which should have a Parliamentary form of government and a bi-cameral legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Statement 3 is correct: It proposed Joint electorates with seats reserved for minorities in legislatures. Because a separate electorate for minorities incites communal feelings, it should be abolished, and a joint electorate established.
Additional information:
This committee was formed after Lord Birkenhead, India’s Secretary of State, asked Indian leaders to draft a constitution for the country.
Background
● When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928, Indians, particularly the Congress Party, were outraged because there was not a single Indian on the Commission.
● So, Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, challenged Indian leaders to draft a constitution for India, implying that Indians were incapable of finding a common path and drafting a constitution.
● The political leaders accepted the challenge, and an All-Party Conference was called, and a committee was formed to draft a constitution.
● The committee’s draft constitution was known as the Nehru Committee Report or Nehru Report. On August 28, 1928, the report was presented at the Lucknow session of the all-party conference.
● This was the first major attempt by Indians to draft their own constitution.
Main Recommendations
● The Senate will elect 200 members for a seven-year term, while the House of Representatives will elect 500 members for a five-year term.
● The Governor-General will make decisions based on the Executive Council’s recommendations. It will be held jointly responsible to the legislature.
● A federal system of government should be established in India, with the Centre retaining residuary powers.
● The Punjabi and Bengali communities will not have any reserved seats. Muslim seats, on the other hand, may be reserved in provinces with a Muslim population of at least 10%.
● The judiciary and the executive must be kept separate.
● Muslims should account for one-quarter of the population at the Center.
● Sind, if it can demonstrate financial independence, should be separated from Bombay.
Outcome
● The Nehru report enraged Bengal’s Muslim political circles, who saw it as a threat to Hindu dominance.
● Separate electorates had become the sine qua non of Muslim politics in Bengal, and its sudden rejection was viewed as a betrayal of the Muslim cause by Hindus.
● They claimed that because of their provincial majority, they should be granted a legislative majority, and that separate electorates should be maintained to protect Hindus from economic and educational exploitation.
● Hindus saw no logic in these demands and instead claimed that, despite being a minority in the population, they fully deserved their current majority in the house based on past service and current capacity.
● The British were supposed to consider and announce another round of constitutional reforms in 1929–30. In preparation, it announced the formation of the ‘Simon Commission.’ The commission was made up entirely of white men, which was an insult to Indians. The Congress resolved to boycott the commission at its annual session in Madras in 1927. The decision was also supported by the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. A series of meetings were held, and the consensus was to work on developing an alternative proposal. The Motilal Nehru Report was the result of the majority of the parties agreeing to challenge the colonial attitude toward India. However, on the issue of communal representation, the All-Parties Meeting in Calcutta in December 1928 refused to accept it.Incorrect
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Motilal Nehru Report 1928 was drafted by an All-Parties Conference committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with his son Jawaharlal Nehru serving as secretary. Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mangal Singh, M S Aney, Subhas Chandra Bose, Shuaib Qureshi, and G R Pradhan were also members.
Statement 2 is correct: The primary goal of the Nehru Report was to grant India dominion status within the British Commonwealth. Dominion status should be granted to India, which should have a Parliamentary form of government and a bi-cameral legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Statement 3 is correct: It proposed Joint electorates with seats reserved for minorities in legislatures. Because a separate electorate for minorities incites communal feelings, it should be abolished, and a joint electorate established.
Additional information:
This committee was formed after Lord Birkenhead, India’s Secretary of State, asked Indian leaders to draft a constitution for the country.
Background
● When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928, Indians, particularly the Congress Party, were outraged because there was not a single Indian on the Commission.
● So, Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, challenged Indian leaders to draft a constitution for India, implying that Indians were incapable of finding a common path and drafting a constitution.
● The political leaders accepted the challenge, and an All-Party Conference was called, and a committee was formed to draft a constitution.
● The committee’s draft constitution was known as the Nehru Committee Report or Nehru Report. On August 28, 1928, the report was presented at the Lucknow session of the all-party conference.
● This was the first major attempt by Indians to draft their own constitution.
Main Recommendations
● The Senate will elect 200 members for a seven-year term, while the House of Representatives will elect 500 members for a five-year term.
● The Governor-General will make decisions based on the Executive Council’s recommendations. It will be held jointly responsible to the legislature.
● A federal system of government should be established in India, with the Centre retaining residuary powers.
● The Punjabi and Bengali communities will not have any reserved seats. Muslim seats, on the other hand, may be reserved in provinces with a Muslim population of at least 10%.
● The judiciary and the executive must be kept separate.
● Muslims should account for one-quarter of the population at the Center.
● Sind, if it can demonstrate financial independence, should be separated from Bombay.
Outcome
● The Nehru report enraged Bengal’s Muslim political circles, who saw it as a threat to Hindu dominance.
● Separate electorates had become the sine qua non of Muslim politics in Bengal, and its sudden rejection was viewed as a betrayal of the Muslim cause by Hindus.
● They claimed that because of their provincial majority, they should be granted a legislative majority, and that separate electorates should be maintained to protect Hindus from economic and educational exploitation.
● Hindus saw no logic in these demands and instead claimed that, despite being a minority in the population, they fully deserved their current majority in the house based on past service and current capacity.
● The British were supposed to consider and announce another round of constitutional reforms in 1929–30. In preparation, it announced the formation of the ‘Simon Commission.’ The commission was made up entirely of white men, which was an insult to Indians. The Congress resolved to boycott the commission at its annual session in Madras in 1927. The decision was also supported by the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. A series of meetings were held, and the consensus was to work on developing an alternative proposal. The Motilal Nehru Report was the result of the majority of the parties agreeing to challenge the colonial attitude toward India. However, on the issue of communal representation, the All-Parties Meeting in Calcutta in December 1928 refused to accept it.
