Modern History of India

131. The Radcliffe Committee was appointed to

The Radcliffe Committee was appointed to

[amp_mcq option1=”solve the problem of minorities in India” option2=”give effect to the Independence Bill” option3=”delimit the boundaries between India and Pakistan” option4=”enquire into the riots in East Bengal” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2014
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C.
The Radcliffe Committee, formally known as the Boundary Commission, was appointed in 1947 under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Radcliffe. Its primary task was to demarcate the boundaries between India and Pakistan following the partition, based on the principle of contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. Options A, B, and D describe other aspects or consequences of the partition period, but not the specific purpose for which the Radcliffe Committee was appointed.
Sir Cyril Radcliffe was a British lawyer and was given only a few weeks to complete the complex and contentious task of drawing the boundary lines, leading to significant controversy and tragic consequences during and after partition.

132. The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the

The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the

[amp_mcq option1=”imposition of certain restrictions to carry arms by the Indians” option2=”imposition of restrictions on newspapers and magazines published in Indian languages” option3=”removal of disqualifications imposed on the Indian magistrates with regard to the trial of the Europeans” option4=”removal of a duty on imported cotton cloth” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2013
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Ilbert Bill controversy was related to the proposal to remove the disqualification imposed on Indian magistrates and judges regarding the trial of European British subjects in India.
The Ilbert Bill, introduced in 1883 during the tenure of Viceroy Lord Ripon, aimed to bring Indian and European judges to the same level of judicial authority. Prior to this, a European could not be tried by an Indian judge. The bill sparked widespread protest from the British community in India, leading to its amendment which significantly diluted its original intent and highlighted the racial tensions of the time.
The controversy, often termed the ‘White Mutiny’, exposed the racial prejudices prevalent among the British in India and contributed to the growth of Indian nationalism by demonstrating the discriminatory nature of the colonial administration and fostering a sense of unity among Indians against the common adversary.

133. Quit India Movement was launched in response to

Quit India Movement was launched in response to

[amp_mcq option1=”Cabinet Mission Plan” option2=”Cripps Proposals” option3=”Simon Commission Report” option4=”Wavell Plan” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2013
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Quit India Movement was launched in response to the failure of the Cripps Proposals.
In March 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps was sent by the British government with proposals to secure India’s full cooperation and support in World War II. The Cripps Proposals offered Dominion Status after the war and permitted provinces to opt out of the proposed Indian Union, among other things. However, they did not offer immediate independence or a concrete plan for transfer of power acceptable to the Indian National Congress, which demanded a provisional government with real power. The failure of the Cripps Mission, combined with growing discontent over British rule and the impact of the war, led Mahatma Gandhi to call for the Quit India Movement in August 1942, demanding the immediate end of British rule in India.
The Quit India Movement was a significant turning point in the Indian independence struggle. It involved widespread civil disobedience and protests, though it faced severe repression by the British authorities.

134. The people of India agitated against the arrival of Simon Commission

The people of India agitated against the arrival of Simon Commission because

[amp_mcq option1=”Indians never wanted the review of the working of the Act of 1919″ option2=”Simon Commission recommended the abolition of Dyarchy (Diarchy) in the Provinces” option3=”there was no Indian member in the Simon Commission” option4=”the Simon Commission suggested the partition of the country” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2013
Download PDFAttempt Online
The primary reason for the widespread agitation and boycott against the Simon Commission was the absence of any Indian member in the commission.
The Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission, consisted of seven British Members of Parliament. Its purpose was to report on India’s constitutional progress and suggest reforms. Indian political parties, including the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, vehemently opposed the commission because it had no Indian representatives. They viewed this as an insult to Indian self-respect and a denial of their right to determine their own constitution. The slogan “Simon Go Back” became popular during the protests.
The boycott of the Simon Commission led to widespread protests across India. The commission’s report, submitted in 1930, was subsequently discussed at the Round Table Conferences. The recommendations formed the basis for the Government of India Act 1935.

135. The demand for the Tebhaga Peasant Movement in Bengal was for

The demand for the Tebhaga Peasant Movement in Bengal was for

[amp_mcq option1=”the reduction of the share of the landlords from one-half of the crop to one-third” option2=”the grant of ownership of land to peasants as they were the actual cultivators of the land” option3=”the uprooting of Zamindari system and the end of serfdom” option4=”writing off all peasant debts” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2013
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is A, which correctly states the main demand of the Tebhaga Peasant Movement.
– The Tebhaga movement was a significant peasant agitation that took place in the Bengal province of British India (present-day West Bengal, India, and Bangladesh) during 1946-1947.
– The movement was led by the Kisan Sabha (peasant front of the Communist Party of India).
– The central demand of the Tebhaga movement was the reduction of the share of the harvest taken by the landlords from the traditional one-half (fifty-fifty share) to one-third (tebhaga, meaning “three parts,” where the sharecropper would keep two-thirds).
– The sharecroppers (known as ‘bargadars’ or ‘adhiars’) were tenants who cultivated the land but did not own it, giving a share of the produce to the landlord.
The movement aimed to improve the economic condition of the sharecroppers. While demands for land ownership (B) and the abolition of the Zamindari system (C) were broader goals of the peasant movement in India, the specific and immediate demand of the Tebhaga movement was related to the share of the crop. Writing off peasant debts (D) was also a common peasant demand but not the defining feature of the Tebhaga movement.

136. Consider the following statements about the Rowlatt Act of 1919 : 1.

Consider the following statements about the Rowlatt Act of 1919 :

  • 1. It was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council
  • 2. Khilafat Committee was formed to oppose the Act
  • 3. While Gandhiji was arrested, the local leaders were allowed to continue the protest

How many of the above statements is/are NOT correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”One” option2=”Two” option3=”Three” option4=”None” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Let’s evaluate each statement about the Rowlatt Act of 1919:
1. It was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council: This is correct. The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919 (Rowlatt Act) was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council despite unanimous opposition from the elected Indian members, relying on the official majority.
2. Khilafat Committee was formed to oppose the Act: This is incorrect. The Khilafat Committee was formed in 1919 to protest against the harsh terms imposed on the Ottoman Empire after World War I and to defend the Caliphate. While the Khilafat issue later merged with the Non-Cooperation Movement which also included opposition to the Rowlatt Act, the committee’s primary reason for formation was the Khilafat issue, not the Rowlatt Act itself.
3. While Gandhiji was arrested, the local leaders were allowed to continue the protest: This is incorrect. Gandhiji was arrested on April 10, 1919, while on his way to Punjab. Many local leaders, including Dr. Satyapal and Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew in Amritsar, were also arrested as part of the government’s suppression of the protests against the Rowlatt Act. These arrests often escalated tensions and led to further unrest, as seen in Amritsar leading to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Statements 2 and 3 are incorrect.
The question asks for the number of statements that are *NOT* correct. Statements 2 and 3 are incorrect.
The Rowlatt Act empowered the government to imprison any person without trial and conviction in a court of law. It was widely opposed by Indians as it violated basic civil liberties. The nationwide protest against the act was one of the first instances of mass agitation organized by Gandhi at an all-India level, though it was primarily led by various segments of society initially. The merging of the Khilafat issue with the Rowlatt Satyagraha solidified Hindu-Muslim unity in the early phase of the nationalist movement.

137. Which of the following statements are correct? 1. The Third Round Tabl

Which of the following statements are correct?
1. The Third Round Table Conference met in London in November 1932 without the participation of Congress.
2. The discussions in the Third Round Table Conference led to the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. The Government of India Act, 1935 did not favor the idea of provincial autonomy.
4. The Governor was not given any power in the Act of 1935 to take over and run the administration of a province.
Select the answer using the code given below:

[amp_mcq option1=”3 and 4″ option2=”1 and 2″ option3=”2 and 3″ option4=”1 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is B.
Statement 1: The Third Round Table Conference met in London in November 1932 without the participation of Congress. This is correct. The First Round Table Conference was held from November 1930 to January 1931, without Congress participation. The Second Round Table Conference was held from September to December 1931, attended by Mahatma Gandhi as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress. The Third Round Table Conference was held from November 17 to December 24, 1932, and was poorly attended; the Congress again boycotted it.

Statement 2: The discussions in the Third Round Table Conference led to the passing of the Government of India Act, 1935. This is correct. The three Round Table Conferences, along with the recommendations of the Simon Commission (1930) and subsequent discussions including the White Paper of 1933, formed the basis for the drafting of the Government of India Bill, which was eventually passed as the Government of India Act, 1935.

Statement 3: The Government of India Act, 1935 did not favor the idea of provincial autonomy. This is incorrect. The Government of India Act, 1935 is a landmark act precisely because it introduced provincial autonomy, replacing the system of dyarchy in the provinces introduced by the 1919 Act. Provinces were granted considerable autonomy in their own sphere.

Statement 4: The Governor was not given any power in the Act of 1935 to take over and run the administration of a province. This is incorrect. Although provincial autonomy was granted, the Act of 1935 provided the provincial Governors with significant discretionary powers and ‘special responsibilities’. These powers allowed the Governor, under certain circumstances (e.g., failure of constitutional machinery), to act on their own judgment, even overriding the elected provincial government, and potentially take over the administration.

Therefore, only statements 1 and 2 are correct.

The Government of India Act, 1935 was a lengthy and complex piece of legislation. Key features included: introduction of provincial autonomy, abolition of dyarchy in provinces but introduction at the centre (never fully implemented), proposal for an All-India Federation (which did not materialize as princely states did not join), separation of Burma from India, and establishment of the Federal Court. The Act gave significant powers to the Governors and Governor-General, which were criticized by Indian nationalists.

138. Which one of the following pairs of books and their authors is not cor

Which one of the following pairs of books and their authors is not correctly matched ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Bandi Jiwan : Sachindranath Sanyal” option2=”The Philosophy of the Bomb : Bhagwati Charan Vohra” option3=”Indian Unrest : Annie Besant” option4=”Desher Katha : Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
Let’s check the pairs:
A) Bandi Jiwan: Written by Sachindranath Sanyal. This is correctly matched. Sanyal was a revolutionary, and ‘Bandi Jiwan’ is his autobiographical account.
B) The Philosophy of the Bomb: Written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra. This is correctly matched. Vohra, a member of HSRA, wrote this as a response to Gandhi’s critique of revolutionary violence.
C) Indian Unrest: This book was written by Valentine Chirol, an English journalist. Annie Besant was a harsh critic of this book as it portrayed Indian nationalism negatively and linked it to figures like B.G. Tilak. Therefore, the pair “Indian Unrest : Annie Besant” is *not* correctly matched.
D) Desher Katha: Written by Sakharam Ganesh Deuskar. This is correctly matched. This book in Bengali was very influential during the Swadeshi movement, highlighting the economic exploitation by the British.
The incorrect match is option C.
Valentine Chirol wrote ‘Indian Unrest’. Annie Besant was a critic of this book.
Valentine Chirol’s ‘Indian Unrest’ was published in 1910. B.G. Tilak filed a defamation suit against Chirol in London for remarks made in the book.

139. Who among the following was known as ‘Lokhitwadi’ ?

Who among the following was known as ‘Lokhitwadi’ ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Keshub Chandra Sen” option2=”Gopal Hari Deshmukh” option3=”M.G. Ranade” option4=”Gopal Ganesh Agarkar” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
Gopal Hari Deshmukh (1823-1892) was a social reformer, writer, and judge from Maharashtra, India. He is widely known by his pen name ‘Lokhitwadi’. He wrote extensively in Marathi on social and political issues, advocating for reforms like rationalism, humanism, and social equality.
‘Lokhitwadi’ was the pen name used by Gopal Hari Deshmukh, a prominent social reformer from Maharashtra.
He wrote weekly essays under the title ‘Lokhitwadi’ in the Marathi newspaper ‘Prabhakar’, which were later compiled as ‘Shatapatre’ (100 letters). He criticized Hindu orthodoxy and advocated for modern education and social reform.

140. Which one of the following commissions was not associated with public

Which one of the following commissions was not associated with public services in India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Aitchison Commission” option2=”Islington Commission” option3=”Lee Commission” option4=”Radhakrishnan Commission” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Aitchison Commission (1886), the Islington Commission (1912), and the Lee Commission (1923) were all commissions appointed during the British Raj to review and make recommendations regarding the Indian Public Services (civil services). The Radhakrishnan Commission (1948), also known as the University Education Commission, was appointed after India’s independence to examine the state of university education and suggest improvements. Therefore, the Radhakrishnan Commission was not associated with the public services in the sense of civil administration, but with education.
Aitchison, Islington, and Lee Commissions dealt with Public Services/Civil Services during British rule. The Radhakrishnan Commission dealt with University Education after independence.
The recommendations of these commissions significantly influenced the structure, recruitment, and Indianisation of the civil services in British India. The Radhakrishnan Commission’s report was crucial for the development of the higher education system in independent India.
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Exit mobile version