Subject: History

Question:1 Comment on any three of the following statements in about 200 words each:

(a) ‘Absentee landlordism was a consequential feature of Bengal’s Permanent land settlement.’

Answer: In Bengal the revenue had previously been collected through hereditary Zamindars. The Zamindars of Bengal were really the rural agent government. Below the Zamindars came the cultivating peasants. They were exposed to the rods of Zamindars as the Zamindars were liable to the rot the government officers, but like the Zamindars themselves they had a traditional hereditary right were rarely dispossessed. But in British period e right had been confiscated.

The great difficulty of the company was to know how much the countryside could safely pay. This the Zamindar’s secret which they were disinclined share since their living depended on its exploitation At first the company’s demand together with servants’ derangment of the local economy led to collection. Hastings made several attempts regularize the situation but he never succeeded penetrating the Zamindars’ secret. Due to settlements were made with the Zamindars for a of years, fixed at ten in 1789 and finally permanent. The Zamindars were looked as landlords. In England the central feagure in agriculture at the time was the landlord and the British officials made the mistake of thinking that the Zamindars their Indian counterpart. The landlord in Britain ii the owner of the land not only in relation to the term but also in relation to the state. But in Bengal x the zamindars were landlord over the tenants, he himself subordinated to the state. Intact he ii reduced virtually to the status of a tenant of (helm India Company.

The Zamindar was to make a fixed annual papa to the government. retarning one tenth of his collect as his fee. But at first the rates were high and pt did not rise, so that he could not even squeeze peasant. Then he was sold up instead of being but up but left where he was in the Mughal way .The result was a big change in Zamindari personnel and the appearance of new men from Calcutta who bought estates as financial speculations. The new landlord were often absentees with no local connection, 1, Bengal peasantry became a rustic proletariat.

(b) ‘India underwent suffering and mortality in the wake of recurring famines’ in the later half of the 19th century.

Answer : A major characteristic of British rule in India and the net result of British economic policies was the prevalence of extreme poverty among its people. The poverty of the people found its culmimation in a series of famines which ravaged all parts of India in the second half’ of the 19th century. The first of these famines occurred in western UP in 1960-61 and cost over 2 lakh of lives. In 1865-66 a famine engulfed Orissa, Bengal, Bihar and Madras and took a fall of nearly 20 lakhs of lives. Orissa alone losing 10 lakhs of people. More than 14 lakhs of persons died in the famine of 1868-70 in western U.P., Bombay and Punjab. Many states of Rajputana. another affected area, lost one fourth to one-third of their population. Perhaps the worst famine in Indian history till then occurred in 1876- 78 in Madras, Mysore, Hyderabad, Maharashtra, Western U.P., and the Punjab. Maharashtra cost 8 lakhs people, Madras nearly 35 lakhs. Mysore nearly 20% of its population and UP over 12 lakhs. Drought led to a countrywide famine in 1896-97 which affected over 9.5 crores of people of whom nearly 45 lakhs died. The famine of 1899-1900 followed quickly and caused widespread distress. In spite of official efforts to save lives through provision of famine relief, over 25 lakhs people died.

Apart from these major famines, many other local famines and scarcities occurred. William Digoy, a British writer has calculated that, in all, over 28,825,000 people died during famines from 1854 to 1901. India’s economic backwardness and poverty were not due to the niggardliness of nature. They were abundant and capable of yielding, if properly utilized, a high degree of prosperity to the people. But as a result of foreign rule and exploitation, and of a backward agrarian and industrial economic structure-in fact as the total outcome of its historical and social development India presented the paradox of a poor people living in a rich country.

(c) ‘In the summer of 1942 Gandhi was in a strange and uniquely militant mood.’

Answer: Britain and France joined together to placate Hider. The Government of India immediately joined the war without consulting the National Congress or the elected members of the central legislature. While Congress was in full sympathy with the victims of fascist aggression, and was willing to help the forces of democracy in their struggle against fascism. So congress demanded freedom to participate actively in the struggle. The British government refused to accept this demand and tried to pit the religious minorities and princes against the Congress. The Congress therefore  asked its ministers to resign.. In October. 1940 Gandhigave the call for a limited Satyagraha.

Vinoba Bhave was the first to offer Satyagraha. By 15 May 1941, more than 25,000 Satyagrahis had been jailed. In the East. Japan was growing and occupied Rangoon in March 1942 and was moving towards India and the spectre of Japanese conquest began to haunt the people and their leaders. In the mean time British Government desperately wanted the active cooperation of Indians in the war effort. To secure this cooperation it sent to India in March 1942 a mission headed by a Cabinet Minister. Sir Stafford Cripps, who was earlier the strong supporter of Indian  National Movement. Even though Cripps declared that the aim of British Policy in India was “the earliest possible realization of self government in India”- detailed negotiations between him and the Congress leaders broke down. The British govemment refused to accept the Congress demand for the immediate transfer of effective power to Indians. The failure of Cripps Mission embittered the people of India. The  period from April to August 1942 was one of the daily heightening tension, with Gandhiji becoming more andmore militant as Japanese forces moved towards India.

The congress now decided to take active steps of compel the British to accept the Indian demand for independence. The All India Congress Committee met  at Bombay on 8 August 1942. It passed a famous ‘Quit India’ Resolution and proposed the starting of a nonviolent mass struggle under Gandhiji’s leadership to achieve this aim. Addressing the Congress delegates on the night of 8 August he delivered a fiery speech
and gave a slogan, “Do or Die”.

(d) ‘Rabindranath Tagore’s nationalism was based on a Catholic internationalism.’

Answer: Tagore’s concepts about ‘nation’ and ‘state’ were not of Indian origin. He held the view that it was of European origin. To him state is an  “organization for power”. The concept of Nation state may have suffered due to it. The “Nation is the greatest evil for the nation They “trade on the feebleness of the rest of world”. It aims at success and not goodness. It is collective selfishness at the cost of morality. In its organic form, it reduces individual to a mere Cog. Nationalism, he felt, it has hindered the growth of humanism. Both Nation and Nationalism have a very  narrow scope. He considered Nation to be opposed to the social interest of man. The ideal of the social man is unselfishness, but the ideal of the nation. like that of professional man, is selfishness. The belief in nation state and nationalism have raised barrier between the societies. The basis of Hindu civilization
is society, the basis of European civilization is the state.

But if we ever think that to build up the Nation after European pattern is the only way open and the only aim of humanity, we shall be wrong. He loved all men irrespective of their racial levels. In small minds, patriotism disassociates itself from the higher ideal of humanity. It becomes the magnification of self. On a stupendous scale-magnifying our vulgarity, cruelty,  greed dethroning God, to put up this bloated self inits place. Hence, “price of patriotism is not for me. I earnestly hope that I shall find my home anywhere in the world before I leave it”. His patriotism was not bound to the geographical limits. He identified himself with all humanity.

Tagore made this belief his own. He expended the spiritual unity of man and of universalism on this basis. The true freedom according to him is. the freedom of soul. Since, the common spirit is present in all; men, therefore, are equal. For this, he held that the harriers of race, nationalism, religion and caste should not be taken as more than the paper walls.

Question: 2. What was the impact of early British land policy on the ‘village communities’ of North India?

Answer: The British imperial ruler of India unleashed far-reaching changes in Indian agrarian structure. Net land tenure. new land ownership concepts. tenancy changes and heavier state demand for land revenue triggered of far-reaching changes in rural economy and social relationship. Early British administrators of the East India Company considered India as a van estate and acted on the principle that the company was entitled to the entire economic rent. leaving to the cultivators merely the expenses of cultivation and wages of their labour village communities were disregarded. In most part of the North India. the early administrators resorted to the ‘farming’ of land revenues. Excessive land revenue demands proved counter-productive. Agriculture began to languish, large areas went out of cultivation and famines stared the people in the face. Broadly speaking, the English adopted three types of land tenure in North India, viz, the Zamindai tenure, the Ryotwari tenure and the Mahalwari tenure. Permanent zantindari settlements were made in Bengal. Bihar. Orissa. Banaras Division of the U.P.

The Mahalwari tenure was introduced in major portions of the U.P., the Punjab. The Ryotwari settlements were made in major portions of Bombay and Madras presidencies, in Assam and some other parts of British
India.

Under the zamindari settlements, old tax farmers, revenue collectors, and zamindars were turned into private landlords possessing some, but not all, of the  right of private property in land. For one, the bulk ofthe rent they derived from the tenants was to be turned over to the government. At the same time, they were made complete master of the village communities. The zamindar was recognized as the owner who could mortgage. bequeath and sell the land. The state held the zamindar responsible for the payment of land revenue and in default thereof. the land could be confiscated and sold out. A snag in the permanent settlement of Bengal was that while the state’s land revenue demand was fixed. the rent to be realized by the landlords from the cultivators, was left unsettled and unspecified. This resulted in rack-creating and frequent ejections of tenants from their traditional
holdings.

Under the Mahalwari system, the unit for revenue settlement is the village or the Mahal (i.e., the estate). The village land belongs jointly to the village community, technically called, ‘The body of coshares’.

The body of co-shares are jointly responsible for payment of land revenue, though individual responsibility is also there. If any co-shares abandons his land it is taken over by the village community as a whole. The village community is the owner of village ‘common land’ including the forest land, pastures etc.

Whatever the name of the system, it was the peasant cultivators who suffered most. They were forced to pay very high rent and for all practical purposes functioned as tenant-at-will. They were compelled to pay many illegal dues and cesses and were often required to perform forced labour or begar. What is more important, whatever the name or nature of revenue system in effect the government came to occupy the position of the landlord. Moneylenders emerged as an influential economic and political force in the country. Because of the high revenue rates demanded and the rigid manner of collection, the peasant cultivators had often to borrow money to pay taxes. In addition to paying exorbitant interest, when his crops were ready he was invariably forced to sell his produce cheap. The chronic poverty of the peasant compelled him to take recourse to the moneylender especially in times of droughts, floods and famines. The moneylenders, on the other hand, could manipulate the new judicial system and the administrative machinery to his advantage. In this regard the government, in fact, actually helped him, because without him the land revenue could not be collected in time, nor could the agricultural produce be brought to the ports for export. Even to get the commercial crops for   export produced in the first instance, the government depended on the moneylenders to persuade the cultivators by offering to finance him through loans. It is not surprising, therefore, that in course of time the moneylender  began to occupy a dominant position in the rural economy. In both the Zamindari and Mahalwari areas there occurred a large-scale transfer of land from the hands of the actual cultivators to the hands of the moneylenders, merchant, officials and rich peasants. This led to landlordism becoming the dominant feature of land relationship in North India.

Intermediate rent-receivers also grew. This process is referred to as sub-infeudation. The new landlords and zamindar had even less of a link with land than the old zamindars. Instead of taking the trouble to organize a machinery for rent collection, they merely subject their rights to intermediate receivers. 

The impact of British rule thus led to the evolution of a new structure of agrarian relations that was extremely regressive. The new system did not at all permit the development of agriculture. New social classes appeared at the top as well as at the bottom of the social scale. There arose landlords, intermediaries, and moneylenders at the top and tenants-at-will,. share-croppers and agricultural labourers at the bottom. The new pattern was neither capitalism nor feudalism, nor was it a continuation of the old Mughat arrangement. It was a new structure that colonialism evolved. It was a semi-feudal and semi colonial in character.

Subject: History

Question : 3. Trace the factors which led to a split in the Indian National Congress in 1907.What was its impact on the course of the nationalist movement?

Ans: The closing decade of the 19th century and early years of 20th century witnessed the emergence of a new and younger group within the Indian National Congress which was sharply critical of the ideology and methods of the old leadership. These angry young men advocated the adoption of Swaraj as the goal of the congress to be achieved by more selfreliant and independent methods. The new group came to be called the extremist party in contrast to the older one which began to be referred to as the moderate party. Although there were lot of difference between the two groups regarding the methods and technique to counter the imperialist force, the British, but the main reasons of split in 1907 were mainly the partition of Bengal.

The agitation against the partition of Bengal made a deep impact on the Indian National Congress. All sections at the National Congress united in opposing the partition. At its session of 1905, Gokhale, the president of the Congress, roundly condemned the partition as well as the reactionary regime of Curzon. The National Congress also supported the Swadeshi and Boycott movement of Bengal. There was much public debate and disagreement between the moderate and the extremist nationalists. The latter wanted to extend the Swadeshi and Boycott movements from Bengal to the rest of the country and to extend the Boycott to every from of associations with the colonial government. The moderates wanted to confine the Boycott Movement in Bengal and even there to limit it to the boycott of foreign goods. There was a tussle between the two groups for the presidentship of the National Congress for that year (1906). In the end Dadabhai Naoroji, respected by all nationalists as a great patriot, was chosen as a compromise. Dadabhai electrified the nationalist ranks by openly declaring in his presidential address that the goal of the Indian national movement was “Self-government” or Swaraj like that of the United Kingdom or the colonies”.

But the differences dividing the two wings of the nationalist movement could not be kept in check for long. Many of the moderate nationalists did not keep pace with events. The other hand were not willing to be held back. The split between the two came at the Surat Session of the National Congress in December 1907. The moderate leaders having captured the machinery of the congress excluded the militant elements from it.

But in long run the split did not prove useful to either party. The moderate leaders lost touch with younger generation of nationalists. The British Government played the game of ‘Divide and Rule’. While suppressing the militant nationalists, it tried to win over moderate nationalists’ opinion so that the militant nationalist could be isolated and suppressed. To placate the moderate nationalists, it announced constitutional concessions through the Indian Council Act of 1909 which are known as the Marley-Minto Reforms of 1909. In 1911, the government also announced the annulment of the partition of Bengal. Western and Eastern Bengal were to be resented while a new province consisting of Bihar and Orissa was to be created. At the same time the seat of the central government was shifted from Calcutta to Delhi.

The moderate Nationalist did not fully support the Morely-Minto Reforms. They soon released that the reform had not really granted much. But they decided to cooperate with government in working the reforms. This cooperation with the government and their opposition to the programme of the militant nationalists proved very costly to them. They Gradually lost the respect and support of the public and were reduced to a small political group.

The Morely-Minto reform introduced the separate electorates under which all Muslims were grouped in separate constituencies from which Muslim alone could he elected. It checked the progress of India’s unification which had been a continuous historical process. It became a potent factor in the growth of communalism-both Muslim and Hinduin the country.

During the first world war, the Indian nationalist leaders including Lokamanya Tilak, who had been released in June 1914, decided to support the war effort of the government in the mistaken belief that grateful Britain would repay India’s loyalty with gratitude and enable India to take a long step forward on the road to self-government. They did not realize fully that the different powers were fighting the First World War precisely to safeguard their existing colonies. Now the Indian leaders fully realized that government was not likely to give any concession unless popular pressure was brought to bear upon it. The war period also witnessed the soaring prices of the daily necessities of life and heavy taxation. The nationalist leaders were getting ready to join any militant movement of protest. Consequently the war years were the years of intense nationalist political agitation.

But this mass agitation could not be carried out under the leadership of Indian National Congress, which had become, under the moderate leadership a passive and inert political organization with no political work among the people to its credit. Therefore two Home Rule Leagues were started in 1915-16, one under the leadership of Lokmanya Tilak and the other under the leadership of Annie Besant and S. Subramanaya Iyer. The two Home Rule Leagues worked in cooperation and carried out intense propaganda all over the country in favour of the demand for grant of Home Rule or self-government to India after the War. Many moderate nationalists, who were dissatisfied with the Congress inactivity, joined the Home Rule agitation. The war period also witnessed the growth of the revolutionary movement. The terrorist groups spread from Bengal and Maharashtra to the whole of northern India. Moreover many Indians began to plan a violent rebellion to overthrow British rule. The nationalists soon saw that disunity in their ranks was injuring their cause and that they must put up a united front before the government. The growing nationalist feelings in the country and the urge for national unity produced two historic developments at the Lucknow Session of Indian National Congress in 1916. Firstly the two wings of Congress were reunited. The old controversies had lost their meaning and the split in the congress had led to political inactivity. Tilak, released fromjail in 1914, immediately saw the change in the situation and set out to unity the two streams of Congress. On the other hand, the rising tide of nationalism compelled the old leaders to welcome back into the Congress Lokmanya Tilak and other militant nationalists. The Lucknow Congress was the first united congress since 1907. For the period of almost 9 years, the Indian national movement was directionless and without planned motive and got a severe setback, and a period of unrest and stagnation. But one another development was the unity of congress and Muslim league. They forgot their differences and put up common political demands before the government.

Question : 4. Examine the causes of the rise and progress of revolutionary movements in India from 1905 to 1931.

Answer: Along with the open political movements. there arose in the first decade of the 20th century various revolutionary groups in the different parts of the country. These early revolutionaries, active mainly in Bengal, Maharashta, Tamil Nadu and Punjab had no faith in constitutional agitations. They believed that by terrorizing British officials, they would be able to demoralize the entire machinery of the government and bring about freedom. After the government suppressed almost all open political agitations and imprisoned a large number of nationalist leaders, the activities of the revolutionary groups intensified.

After the division of Bengal, the leadership of Anti-partition movement soon passed to militant nationalist, like Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghose. This was due to many factors. Firstly. the early movement of protest by the moderates failed to yield results. Even the liberal secretary of state John Morely, from whom much was expected by the moderate Nationalists, declared the partition to he a settled fact which would not be
changed. Secondly, the government of the two Bengals, particularly of East Bengal, made effective efforts to divide Hindu and Muslim. Seeds of Hindu Muslim disunity in Bengal Politics were perhaps sown at this nine. This embittered the nationalists. But most of all, it was a repressive policy of the government which led people to militant and revolutionary politics.

The government of East Bengal, in particular, tried to crush the nationalist movement. Official attempted at preventing student participation in the Swadeshi Agitation. The singing of Bande Matram in public streets in East Bengal was banned. Public meetings were restricted and sometimes forbidden. Laws controlling the press enacted. Swadeshi workers were prosecuted, and imprisioned for long periods. Many students awarded even corporate punishment. From 1906 to 1909 more than 550 cases came up before Bengal court. Prosecutions against a large number of nationalist newspapers were launched and freedom of press was completely suppressed. Military police was stationed in many towns where it clashed with the people_ One of the most notorious examples of repressions was the police assault on the peaceful delegates of Bengal provincial conference at

Barisal in April 1906. Many of the young volunteers were severely beaten up and the conference itself was forcibly dispersed. In December 1908 nine Bengal leaden including the venerable Krishna Kumar Mitra and Ashwini Kumar Drift were deported. In 1908, the great Tilak was arrested and given the severe sentence of 6 years imprisonment. Chidambram Pillai in Madras and Hari Sarvottam Rao and other in Andhra were put
behind bars. As the militant nationalists came to the face, they gave the call for passive resistance in addition to Swadeshi and Boycott. They asked the people to refuse to cooperate with the government and to boycott government service, the courts, government schools, and colleges and municipalities and legislative councils, and thus, as Aurobindo Ghose put it, “to make administration under present condition impossible”. The militant nationalists tried to transform the Swadeshi and Anti-partition agitation into a mass movement and gave the slogan of independence from foreign rule. The youth of Bengal found all avenues of peaceful protest and political actions blocked and out of desperation they fell back upon individual heroic action and the cult of the bomb. They no longer believed that passive resistance could achieve nationalist aims.

The British must therefore, be physically expelled. In 1904, V.D. Savarkar had organized the Abhinav Bharat, a secret society of revolutionaries. After 1905 several news papers had begun to advocate revolutionary terrorism. The Sandhya and the Yugantar in Bengal and the Kal in Maharashtra were the most important among them. In December 1907 an attempt was made on the life of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and in April 1908, Khudiram Bose and Prafull a Chaki threw a bomb at a carriage which they believed was occupied by Kingsford, the popular judge at Muzaffarpur. Prafulla Chaki shot himself dead while Khudiram Bose was tried and hanged. The era of revolutionary terrorism had begun.

The revolutionaries also established centres of activity abroad. In 1915 during an unsuccessful revolutionary attempt. Jatin Mukherjee popularly known as Bagha Jatin gave his life fighting a battle with the police at Balasore. Rash Bihari Bose, Raja Mahendra Pratap, Lala Hardayal, Abdul Rahim, Maulana Ubaidllah Sindhi, Champa Karaman Pillai, Sardar Singh Rana and Madam Cama were some of the prominent leaders who carried on revolutionary activities and propaganda outside India.

Another reflection of the new mood was growing activity of the revolutionary terrorist movement which too was beginning to take a socialist turn. The failure of the first non-cooperation movement had led to the revival of the revolutionary movement. After an all India conference. the Hidustan Republican Association was founded in October 1224 to organize an armed revolution. The government struck at it by arresting a large number of terrorist youths and trying them in the Kakori conspiracy case (1925). Seventeen were sentenced to long term of imprisonment, four were transported for life and four including Rain Prasad Bismal and Ashfaquallah were hanged. The terrorists soon came under the influence of socialist ideas. and in 1928, under the leadership of Chandra Shekher Azad changed the name of their organization to the Hindustan Sociolist Republican Association (HSRA). They also gradually began to move away from individual heroic action and terrorism. But the brutal lathi-charge on an anti-Simon Commission demonstration on 30 October, 1928 led to a sudden change. The great Punjabi Leader Lala Lajpat Rai died as a result of the lathi blows. This enraged the youth and on 17 December 1928, Bhagat Singh, Azad and Rajguru assassinated Saunders, the British Police officer who had led the Lathi Charge. The HRSA leadership also decided to let the people know about their changed political activities and objectives and the need for a revolution by the masses. Consequently, Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt a threw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly on 8 April 1929. The bomb did not harm anyone, for it had been deliberately made harmless. The aim was not to kill but, as their leaflet put it, “to make the deaf hear”.

 Bhagat Singh and B.K. Daft a could have easily escaped, but they deliberately chose to be arrested for they wanted to make use of the court as a forum for revolutionary  propaganda.In Bengal too, revolutionary terrorist activities were revived. In April 1930, a well-planned and largescale armed raid was organised on the government armoury at Chitagang. under the leadership of Surya Sen. This was the first of many attacks on unpopular government officials. A remarkable aspect of the terrorist movement in Bengal was the participation of young women. The Chitagang revolutionaries marked a major advance. Their’s was not an individual action but a group action aimed at the organs of the colonial state. Bhagat Singh. Sukhdcv and Rajguru were executed on 23 March 1931. In his last message of 3 March 1931 he declared that the struggle in India would continue so long as “a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of the common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capitalists, or British and Indians in alliance or even purely_
Indians”. And he accepted that he acted as a terrorist but he was not the terrorist.

The revolutionary terrorist movement soon abated though stray activities were carried on for several years more. Chandra Shekhar Azad was killed in a shooting encounter with the police in a Public Park. Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933 and hanged soon after.

Subject: History

5. Comment on any three of the following statements in about 200 words each:

(a) ‘The French Revolution attacked privileges and not property.’

Answer: French society was divided into classes or estates. There were two privileged classes-the clergy and the nobility. These were known as the first estate and estate respectively. These two classes together owned about 40 per cent of the total land of France. They were exempted from taxes and controlled most of the administrative posts and all the high ranking posts in the army. Their income primarily came from their large land holdings. A minority of these also depended on pensions and gift from the king. They considered it beneath their dignity to trade or to be engaged in manufacture or to do any work. The life of the nobility was everywhere characterized by extravagance and luxury. Due to what France was suffering economic crisis. There were of course poorer sections in these two top estates. They were discontent and blamed the richer member of their class for their misery.

The rest of the people of France were called the Third Estate. They were common people and numbered about 95 per cent population of the total. People of  the Third Estate were unprivileged people. Louis XVI was the king when revolution broke out. Every phenomenon in history has got an economic interpretation. And the revolution of 1789 was definitely an economic revolution. The cleavage between man and man, based upon the privilege which was enjoyed by a set of people and denied to another, was mainly an economic difference. It was that  privilege that shifted the main burden of taxation upon the soulder of the poor and denied the high posts in the government to all but the well born. Thus the difference between privileged and the unprivileged was based on some opportunities lavishly bestowed upon some and totally denied to others. This inequality or desire for equality or the demand for social and economic justice was the fundamental reason of the revolution of 1789. As a result of the revolution all privileges were abolished and people started to avail equal opportunities. Thus the French Revolution attacked priviledged not the property.

(b) ‘The roots of the rise of Fascism lay in Peace Treaties.’

Answer: The end of the First World War, “The war to end all wars”, it was believed, would be followed by an era of peace, freedom, democracy a better life for everyone. But the development during the next 20 years these hopes. One of the major drawbacks was the coming to power of dictatorial regimes in many countries of Europe. Some of the roots of the conflicts in Europe lay in Peace Treaties after the war. After the sense of humiliation rising from defeat of 1918 Germany was left to the mercy of its powerful enemies. On January 18. 1919 allied nations drafted a peace treaty with Germany giving her five days time to sign it or face an invasion. Germany had no choice but to sign what she called dictated peace. She was forced to accept her “war guilt”. The treaty had a chapter which started by stating about Germany’s accepting the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to them. On 28 June, 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany.

According the provision of this treaty, AlsaceLorrain, which Germany had seized from France in 1871 was returned to France. Belgium, Denmark and Lithuvania also gained territories from Germany. Germany was debarred from uniting with Austria, the Rhineland was to be permanently demilitarized and occupied by the allied troops for 15 years. The strength of the German army was fixed at 100,000 and she was not to have any air force and submarines, only a limited number of naval ships. Having been forced to admit her ‘war guilt’, she was required to pay reparations to the Allies. The reparation were assessed later on amounted to £ 6,600 million. He was also deprived of all her colonial possessions having been divided among the victorious powers as per the secret treaties. The reparation settlement doomed the German economy for the foreseeable
future. Because of these the German began to experience severe unemployment.

That Italy turned to Fascism, may at first seems surprising, in view of the fact that the Italians emerged as victors after the first world war. Yet its difficulties were rooted in the problems that the war had done little to resolve. The demoralising and humiliating effects of the war gave rise to Fascism in Italy. The financial cost of Italian participation was over $ 15 billion. Compared to Britain and France these sacrifices were far greater as Italy was a poor country. But, in the peace treaties during the division after the fighting the Italians got less than the expected. While Italy did receive most of the Austrian territories promised in the secret treaties, it was felt that these were inadequate for their valuable contributions and sacrifices made in the war. All of these factors contributed to the revolutionary mood in the country. In this situation,

Mussolini leading an army of Fascist militia gained control of the Italian government. It was all the result of the humiliating effects of the peace treaties of the first world war and not because of the strength of Fascism.

(c) ‘The Security Council is the heart of the United Nations.’

Answer: Protracted deliberations and mutual negotiations led to the inception of the United Nations Organization in 1945. International peace and security is the first concern of United Nations Organization, and the wing of United Nations which perform this duty is the Security Council. The security council often described as the enforcement wing of United Nations. For this purpose, its service can be requisitioned any time. This naturally implies that the security council has to work continuously so that it can take quick action in the event of threat to international peace or security. At present the Security Council comprises of 15 members five permanent and ten non-permanent. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, USA and United Kingdom. The non-permanent members are not eligible for immediate re-election. For its deliberative and enforcement functions the Security Council is meant the heart of United Nations, because every matter related to peace and security are settled and discussed in Security Council.

In the first instance the council has the power to discuss and investigate any dispute or situation and make recommendation to the member states to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Disputes or situation likely to endanger international peace and security may be brought to the attention of Security Council by any member of UN, by the Geneal Assembly or by the Secretary General.

The Security Council has also been vested with important enforcement powers. When the Security Council finds that a peaceful settlement among the disputant countries is not possible, it can decide upon measure which it considers necessary for the maintenance of order and restoration of international peace and security. While taking up adequate measures, Security Council first tries to resolve the dispute without involving the use of armed forces. For this purpose it can adopt measures like complete or partial interruption of economic relations, severing of rail, sea, air, postal. radio and other communication links; and snapping of diplomatic relations.

The new members to the world body can he admitted by General Assembly only on the recommendation of the Security Council. By virtue of this power the Security Council refused to recommend admission of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary. Romania etc. as members of United Nations. Due to these elaborate powers and functions security council has been called the heart of the UN.

(d) ‘The Brussels Treaty of 17 March, 1948 paved the way for the formation of NATO.’

Answer: During the World War II, Britain, the United States and the USSR had together fought against the fascist countries, but after the war conflict began to emerge between Britain and the US on the one hand and the USSR on the other, the relation between them began to deteriorate and came to be characterized by what is called the Cold War. It became more and more intense and the world was divided into two major blocksthe
US and West European countries forming one bloc and USSR and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe forming the other. With the increase in the might of the USSR the mergence of government ruled by communist parties in many parts of the world alarmed the government of US, Britain and other west European countries.

They all became aligned and began to follow a policy mainly aimed at curving the growth of communism.

In this tense international situation, the Brussel’s Treaty was signed on 17 March, 1948 by Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. It was a treaty of economic, social and cultural collaboration and collective self defence. It was a commitment by the five powers who signed it that if any of them was attacked in Europe (which meant that their colonies were not covered) all other signatories would provide all military aid and other assistance within their power. This treaty created the Brussel’s Treaty organization also. It was defensive in nature without naming any enemy in advance, but Soviet block interpreted it as an alliance against her as was the tense situation at that time.

It is in this background that the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) was formed in 1949 for defence against Soviet Union. The members of this alliance were US, Britain, France, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Netherland, Luxemburg, Norway and Portugal. NATO army was created which established its bases in many countries in Europe.

Question : 6. ‘Bismarck united Germany not by majority of votes and speeches but by a policy of “blood and iron”. In the light of this statement assess the contribution of Bismarck to the unification of Germany.

Answer: One of the major features of the 19th century history of Europe was the struggle for national unification and independence. In the 18th century Germany was divided into a number of states. Some of these states were very small and did not extend  beyond the limits of a city. During the Napoleonic wars many of there states ceased to exist. At the end of the wars these were still thirty-eight independent states in Gemany. Among them Prussia. Wurtemberg. Bavaria and Saxony were fairly large. Militarily and in extent Prussia was the most powerful. It was also the most  powerful. It was also the most reactionary. The big landlords of Prussia known as junkers formed the dominant section in Prussian society.

The division of Germany into a number of states had hampered the economic development of Germany. The social and political system in these states was also very backward. With the growth of national consciousness. particularly after the French Revolution. the people of these states had started demanding the national unification of Germany, establishment of democratic government and social and economic reforms. In 1815 the German states along with Austria were organised into a Germanic confederation. However, each state tried to preserve its independence and its oppressive political and social system.

In 1848 revolts occurred in every German state and the rulers were forced to grant democratic constitutions. To unite Germany and to frame a  constitution of the united Germany. a constituent assembly met in Frankfurt. The initial success of the revolts had made the German democrats and  nationalists think that victory had been achieved.

While they debated the clauses of the constitution the rulers prepared themselves to suppress the movements. The Frankfurt Assembly proposed the unification of Germany as a constitutional monarchy under the king of Prussia who would become emperor of Germany. However, the king of Prussia declined the offer. With the failure of the revolution of 1848 to unify Germany, one phase in the struggle for unification came to an end. Now.
Germany was to be unified not into a democratic country by the efforts of the revolutionaries but by the rulers into a militaristic empire. The leader of this policy was Bismarck.

Bismarck belonged to the class of land-owning squires or junkets of Prussia. There was nothing in his early career to give promise of his future greatness. He joined the Prussian civil service but was dismissed for his irregularity. He made his debut in politics in 1847 as a member of the Prussian Diet. During the upheavals of 1848-89 he vigorously opposed the German democrats and liberals and made himself prominent as a fierce reactionary. From 1851 to 1862 he proved himself eminently successful in the Prussian diplomatic service. As a Prussian delegate in the federal diet at Frankfurt and as Prussian ambassador to Paris and St. Petersburg, he gained a deep knowledge of German and European affairs. His great opportunity came when he was called upon by the king to head the ministry.

In support of King’s army reform Bismarck had declared that Germany was looking not to Prussia’s liberalism but to her power. In words which have become classic he clarified his pointed view and said “not by speeches and resolutions of the majority are the great questions of the day to be decided they are to be decided by blood and iron”. To Bismarck a powerful army was to be great instrument for carrying out a wider policy. The policy of `blood and iron’ meant a policy of war. He had in view, viz., the unification of Germany through the might and leadership of Prussia. While he was Prussian delegate at Frankfurt, he had found, much to his annoyance, that Austria would never treat Prussia as her equal. Hence he developed a anti-Austrian feelings and came to the conclusion that “Germany was too narrow for Austria and Prussia”. He had clear cut view that Germany must be united but the unification must be effected under the dominant leadership of Prussia. He was a Prussian to the core and to him a united Germany meant an extension of Prussian powers a Prussianised

Germany. But Prussia would never be able to assume the leadership of Germany as long as there was Austria to thwart her projects. Hence Austria must go, and as she would not go voluntarily, war was necessary. This was the inescapable conviction of the loyal Prussian minister and he was determined to act upon it. He aligned with Austria in a war against  Denmark over the possession of Schleswig and Holstein. After Denmark’s defeat, he entered into an  alliance with Italy against Austria, defeated Austria and dissolved the Germanic confederation. Thus Austria was separated from the other German states. In place of old confederation he united 22 states of Germany into North German Confederation in 1866. The constitution of this confederation made the king  of Prussia the hereditary head of the constitution. The unification of Germany was completed as a
result of war between Prussia and France. In 1870 Louis Bonapart, declared war on Prussia in the hope  of maintaining his empire through military victory. The was partly provoked by Bismarck. The French armies were defeated and the French emperor was captured. Germany’s unification was completed as a result of the war which enabled Bismarck to absorb the remaining German states into a united Germany.

Subject: History

Question : 7. Examine the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and indicate its significance in world history.

Answer: In the nineteenth century, almost entire Europe was going through important social, economic and political transformation. Unlike France and England, which were republic and constitutional monarchy respectively, Russia was still under the autocratic rule of the Czars. Though serfdom was  abolished in 1861, there had been no improvement in  the condition of peasants. They had meagre holdings of land with no capital to develop that. For decades. they had to pay heavy redemption dues for their meagre holdings. During those days, it was the land hunger of peasants which was a major social factor in the Russian society. In the second half of the nineteenth century, industrialization began in Russia. It was already very late and then, it developed at a fast speed. Most of the investment came from foreign countries, the foreign investors were interested in quick profits showing no concern for the conditions of workers. There was a clear cut gap between the Russian investors with insufficient capital and the foreign investors. Russian capitalists, have, reduced workers’ wages. Whether the factory was owned by foreigners or Russians, the workers were the worst victims, their condition being horrible. Deprived of political rights with no means of gaining any kind of reforms, literally they had, in the words of Marx, ‘nothing to lose but their chains’.

The reign of Czars was outdated, unsuitable to modern times. They believed in the divinity of kings. The nobility and the upper class of the clergy were the only people supporting the Czar Nicholas II, in whose reign the Revolution occurred. The bureaucracy was insufficient and its members were only from the privileged classes. There was built a large empire, including diverse nationalities, by the Russian Czars. In all the conquered parts of the empire they imposed the Russian language and culture, belittling the people’s own language and culture. Russia’s imperialist expansion brought her into conflicts with other imperialist forces. The wars only exposed the hollowness of the Christ state. Many peasant rebellions in Russia were suppressed before the nineteenth century. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century after failure of every attempt at gradual improvement, there began a movement ‘going to the people’ when intellectuals started preaching their ideas to the peasants. After  industrialization began in Russia. workers’ organizations were set up. In 1883, the Russian Social Democratic Party was formed by George Plckhanov but was soon split into Mensheviks, the minority and Bolsheviks, the majority. In 1904, a war had broken out between Russia and Japan. The Russian army had suffered reverses in the war. This strengthened the revolutionary movement in Russia. On January 9th, 1905, a mass of peaceful workers with their wives and children was fired at St. Petersburg while on its way to the Winter Palace to present a petition to the Czar. More than a thousand of them were killed and thousands of others were wounded. This is known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. This shocking news provoked unprecedented disturbances throughout Russia.

Even sections of the army and the navy revolted. A new form of organization developed in this revolution which proved decisive in the upheaval of 1917. This was the ‘Soviet’, or the council of workers’ representatives. Though in October, the Czar issued his manifesto of constitutional monarchy, he soon relanted into his old ways. There remained no hope  for gradual reform. The 1905 revolution aroused people and prepared people for revolution in 1917, drawing soldiers, even non-Russian. Bringing Russian into the First World War, Czar tried to satisfy his imperial ambitions by annexing Constantinople. This proved fatal hammering the last nail in the coffin of the Russian autocracy. Corruption was at its peak, there was complete shortage of food. The Russian army was in dire state. This condition was ripe for a revolution. Lenin, in his `the fundamental law for successful revolution’, has included two conditionsthe people should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; the existing government should be in a state of crisis to make it
possible for it to be overthrown rapidly.

On 12 March, 1917, St. Petersburg fell into the hands of the revolutionary and the Czar soon gave up his throne. This was the February Revolution (ace. to the Old Russian Calender). The provisional government lost the support of people as it didn’t implement their demands of peace, land to the Killer, control of industry by workers and equal status to non- Russians. This government collapsed and on November 7 an All-Russian Congress of Soviets assumed full power. This is known as October Revolution (ace to the Old Russian Calender). The first achievements of the Russian Revolution were the overthrow of autocracy and the destruction of the aristocracy and the power of the church. The Czarist empire was transformed into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Its policies were to be directed to the realization of the old socialist ideal, ‘from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need’. Private property as the means of production was abolished and the motive of private profit eliminated from the system of production. Economic planning by the state was adopted to build a technologically advanced economy at fast rate in order to eliminate inequalities in the society. As there was no unearned income, work became an essential requirement for every person. The right to work became a constitutional right and it was the duty of the state to provide employment to every individual.  Education of all people was given priority. Equal status was given to all nationalities in the USSR. The republics formed by the nationalities were given autonomy by the constitution to develop their language and culture.

The Soviet Union became a major power in the world within a few years of the revolution. Its social and economic system was hailed as the beginning of a new civilization. This Revolution was the first successful revolution in history which proclaimed the building of a socialist society as its objective. The Communist International or Commentant was formed for promoting revolutions on an international scale. The formation of communist parties in various countries of the world with the objective of bringing about revolution and following common policies was a major consequence of the Russian revolution. Despite the division of the socialist movement into  two sections-socialist and communist and differences between them on the methods of bringing about socialism and about the concept of socialism itself, socialism became one of the most widely held ideologies within a few decades after its emergence. Its spread and influence was a very significant thing after the First World War. It also promoted internationalism; self interest took a back-seat. Many problems, earlier considered national, were looked upon as international problem. The whole world united in a sense. The fundamental principles of socialist ideology- itnivesality and internationalism were accepted to a great extent. Socialist all over the world organised to put an end to imperialism. The USSR was being looked upon as a friend of those countries struggling for independence as it was the first country in Europe to openly support the cause of independence of all nations from foreign rule. The USSR had annulled the unequal treaties imposed by the Czar on China. The Russian Revolution also influenced the independence movements gradually broadening the objectives of independence to include social and economic equality through planned economic development.

Question 8. Analyse the factors leading to the end of the Cold War and account for the U.S. ascendancy in the world.

Answer: The cold war had begun at a time when the allies, including the US and USSR had successfully defeated the Nazi Germany and her axis partners. The world had expected the lasting friend among the victors when they split and formed two hostile camps. The cold war ended (1990) at a tine when the common man had come to live with it and it was expected that (despite ups and downs and detente) the cast-west conflict would become permanent. When the cold war suddenly ended, the Western Bloc had not expected ‘victory’ and the Eastern Bloc was still dreaming of self destruction of capitalism. The end of cold war came under the aegis of two rather improbable collaborators-Ronald Reagan and Mikhial Gorbachev. The American president had been elected to reaffirm the traditional varieties of American exceptionalism. He was expected to continue to contain communism, not to defeat it. He represented the right in US society. Gorbachev was determined to reinvigorate what he considered a superior soviet ideology. Reagan and Gorbachev both believed in the ultimate victory of their side. Henry Kissinger compared the two men and concluded that while “Reagan understood the mainsprings of his society, whereas Gorbachev had completely lost touch with his society”.

The process of end of Cold War started in the second half of the 1980s when there was softening in the attitude of the top leaders and they adopted  conciliatory posters towards each other. The first concrete manifestation of this change was the Malta Summit between president Bush of US and Mikhail Gorvachev of Soviet Union. In this summit, held aboard ship off Malta on 2 December 1989, the two leaders made a serious bid to reduce tensions and check the growing threats or conflicts in various areas like middle-cast. It has rightly been asserted that the  Malta Summit marked the beginning of a new phase inthe post World War 11 international polities. It also laid the foundation of political cooperation between US and USSR in shaping the post war order in Europe. The Washington Summit (May 30-June 2. 1990) further contributed to the easing of cold war. At this summit president Bush and President Gorbachev concluded a number of agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. The two sides agreed to destroy thousands of tons of chemical weapons and reduce their stockpiles. They agreed to start destruction of these weapons in 1992 and finish it by 2002 AD. They also agreed to cease further production of these weapons with immediate effect. Another important outcome of this summit was that the two leaders agreed on principles regarding the strategic Armed Reduction Treaty (START) which was finally signed on 21 July, 1991. Under this treaty the two superpowers agreed to effect reduction to equal levels in defined strategic offensive arm over a period of seven years. They also agreed to set up a joint commission on certification and inspectign. This was followed by announcement of ‘Unilateral disarmament’
by president Bush. He even indicated his intention to take nuclear tactical weapons out of European soil and reduce possibility of any accidental war. President Bush removed from alert status all missile covered by START and ordered removal of all nuclear artillery shells from overseas bases. He urged Soviet Union to match the nuclear arms cut. The soviet leaders responded favorably and on 5 October 1991 president Gorbachev not only announced extensive cuts in tactical nuclear weapon, but also announced cut of more missiles then it was required under START.

Further, Soviet Union also announced one year moratorium on nuclear testing. This process of unilateral cut of nuclear arms was repeated by president Bush in Jan, 1992, and president Yeltsin of Russia responded equally and announced a 10 point disarmament with the objective of liquidating all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. In the meanwhile the leaders of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact held a conference on security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE), in Paris in November 1990 with a view to eliminate the threats of surprise attack and establish parity of conventional weapons in Europe. The treaty provided for scrapping or conversion about 40.000 tanks and equal number of armored vehicle as well as more than 50,000 artillery pieces on both sides. It was also decided to refuse the number of fighting planes and helicopter gunships. In the wake of above developments the leaders of Warsaw Pact countries decided to dissolve the Eastern European alliance in July 1991. This put an end to east-west confrontation. The factors which contributed to the end of cold war are that first. the changed strategic perception of two super powers greatly contributed to the end of cold war. As the two super powers attained parity in nuclear weapons, they realised that nuclear weapons would be suicidal for both. None of them would be able to win the war, while both would be ruined beyond redemption. Second the enormous expenses being incurred on the maintenance of military bases across the seas, was greatly straining the economy of US and it was though desirable to curb this futile expenditure, particularly in view of the fact that the maintenance of military bases provided only nominal gains.

Third, the two superpowers came to realize that the regional conflicts and proxy wars (as in Vietnam, Angola and Afghanistan) had served no useful purpose. On the other hand these wars had caused serious financial burdens on the two superpowers. This economic strain in turn had led to deterioration of economy of the two countries. This resulted in record trade and budget deficits in United States. Kikewise the military commitment in lands situated far away had upset the soviet economy. All this obliged the leaders of two superpowers to climb down from the earlier rigid postures and reduce military expenditure.

When the cold war ended, it was expected that an ideal world based on understanding, cooperation, disarmament and peace would emerge. But this happened only in the term of America alone. In the post cold war world there have been and are many crises, but no overriding ideological challenge to the united states. Chinese communist leaders have opted for liberation, though in their own style. China is no more ideological challenge to the United States, her being people’s republic not withstanding. There are emerging economic competitors like Germany  and Japan and Russia is stilla nuclear power and can pose a challenge to American superiority. Almost every situation in post-cold war period in a special case. Circumstances helped the United States to prevail in the cold war. But, it may not he very easy for her to dominate the (expected) multipolar world of the twenty-first century.

After the breakup of USSR, US became the sole power to interfere in matters of the world politics in her own terms. The possibility of Unipolar world was being discussed. The US tried to build a new world order by applying its own domestic values to the world at large. Russia was too involved in its own domestic problems. The US led 28 nation coalition’s military action against Iraq for the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 played a major role for the US ascendancy in the world. Its role in Afghanistan has also proved her supremacy over the world community unchallenged.