India history including the national movement and geography
Answers
Answered by
0
An analysis of the previous years’ questions gives the impression drat in the last three years, the total number of history questions has shown a declining trend particularly in the ancient and medieval sections. This perhaps might be because questions on culture have also been asked, though the number of questions have decreased, yet the level of toughness has increased. Moreover, the questions are being asked from hitherto untouched areas, which have made the preparation more difficult. So, over-dependence on History may prove to be fatal for non-history background students.
The Congress was split up into two factions at its Surat session in 1907 to be known as the moderates and the extremists. The moderates had their hold on the party while the extremists furrowed a bold and independent path. The moderates put their faith in the British benevolence, but the extremists scoffed at it. The former advocated patience and the latter were too restive. How could they pull on together? The restive asserted that there could be no philanthropy in politics. Rights are not conferred upon, but are asserted and won. So, said Tilak, “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it.” Aurobindo Ghosh declared, “Political freedom is the life-breath of a nation.” Lala Lajpat Rai thundered, “Indians should no longer be content to be beggars whining for favours; for, if they really cared for their country, they would have to strike a blow for themselves.” These ideas were too radical to the contemporary thinking. Their authors, therefore, came to be known as the radical nationalists. Being too restive for the results, they were also called the extremists or the militant nationalists. They had their day. They did their work well. They suffered for the sake of their patriotism, made supreme sacrifices and infused a new spirit among the young. They quickened the growth of national consciousness and made the nation wake up from its slumber and sluggishness.
The Congress was split up into two factions at its Surat session in 1907 to be known as the moderates and the extremists. The moderates had their hold on the party while the extremists furrowed a bold and independent path. The moderates put their faith in the British benevolence, but the extremists scoffed at it. The former advocated patience and the latter were too restive. How could they pull on together? The restive asserted that there could be no philanthropy in politics. Rights are not conferred upon, but are asserted and won. So, said Tilak, “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it.” Aurobindo Ghosh declared, “Political freedom is the life-breath of a nation.” Lala Lajpat Rai thundered, “Indians should no longer be content to be beggars whining for favours; for, if they really cared for their country, they would have to strike a blow for themselves.” These ideas were too radical to the contemporary thinking. Their authors, therefore, came to be known as the radical nationalists. Being too restive for the results, they were also called the extremists or the militant nationalists. They had their day. They did their work well. They suffered for the sake of their patriotism, made supreme sacrifices and infused a new spirit among the young. They quickened the growth of national consciousness and made the nation wake up from its slumber and sluggishness.
Similar questions