Nation-Building and Its Problems Test - 3

Study the cartoon carefully and give the answers to the question that follows:

Q. On what basis was the two-nation theory proposed?

Study the cartoon carefully and give the answers to the question that follows:

Q. Who among the following leaders were opposed the partition?

Study the cartoon carefully and give the answers to the question that follows:

Q. Who propounded the ‘two nation theory’?

Study the cartoon carefully and give the answers to the question that follows:

Q. Which two states were undecided to be part of either of these countries, at the time of partition?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

Thus it was decided that what was till then known as ‘India’ would be divided into two countries, ‘India’ and ‘Pakistan’. Such a division was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide and to implement. It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India. The idea might appear simple, but it presented all kinds of difficulties. First of all, there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India. There were two areas of concentration, one in the west and one in the east. There was no way these two parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country, Pakistan, will comprise two territories, West and East Pakistan separated by a long expanse of Indian territory. Secondly, not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan. The third problem was that two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal, had very large areas where the non-Muslims were in majority. Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious majority at the district or even lower level. This decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15 August. It meant that a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.

Q. “There was no way these two parts could be joined.” For which of the below this sentence is meant to be:

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

Thus it was decided that what was till then known as ‘India ’would be divided into two countries, ‘India ’and ‘Pakistan ’. Such a division was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide and to implement. It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India. The idea might appear simple, but it presented all kinds of difficulties. First of all, there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India. There were two areas of concentration, one in the west and one in the east. There was no way these two parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country, Pakistan, will comprise two territories, West and East Pakistan separated by a long expanse of Indian territory. Secondly, not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi ’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan. The third problem was that two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal, had very large areas where the non-Muslims were in majority. Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious majority at the district or even lower level. This decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15 August. It meant that a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.

Q. Which two provinces of British India had very large areas where non-Muslims were in majority?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

Thus it was decided that what was till then known as ‘India’ would be divided into two countries, ‘India’ and ‘Pakistan’. Such a division was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide and to implement. It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India. The idea might appear simple, but it presented all kinds of difficulties. First of all, there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India. There were two areas of concentration, one in the west and one in the east. There was no way these two parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country, Pakistan, will comprise two territories, West and East Pakistan separated by a long expanse of Indian territory. Secondly, not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan. The third problem was that two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal, had very large areas where the non-Muslims were in majority. Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious majority at the district or even lower level. This decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15 August. It meant that a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.

Q. Which principle was followed for the division of India and Pakistan?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

Thus it was decided that what was till then known as ‘India’ would be divided into two countries, ‘India’ and ‘Pakistan’. Such a division was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide and to implement. It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India. The idea might appear simple, but it presented all kinds of difficulties. First of all, there was no single belt of Muslim majority areas in British India. There were two areas of concentration, one in the west and one in the east. There was no way these two parts could be joined. So it was decided that the new country, Pakistan, will comprise two territories, West and East Pakistan separated by a long expanse of Indian territory. Secondly, not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan. The third problem was that two of the Muslim majority provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal, had very large areas where the non-Muslims were in majority. Eventually it was decided that these two provinces would be bifurcated according to the religious majority at the district or even lower level. This decision could not be made by the midnight of 14-15 August. It meant that a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.

Q. Who was known as “Frontier Gandhi”?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of the country and the administrative apparatus. What also got divided were the financial assets, and things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band! The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’. Above all, it was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence. Beyond the administrative concerns and financial strains, however, the Partition posed another deeper issue. The leaders of the Indian national struggle did not believe in the two-nation theory. And yet, partition on religious basis had taken place. The Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total population in 1951. There were competing political interests behind these conflicts. The Muslim League was formed to protect the interests of the Muslims in colonial India. But most leaders of the national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion.

Q. Who did not believe in “Two-Nation Theory”?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of the country and the administrative apparatus. What also got divided were the financial assets, and things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band! The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’. Above all, it was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence. Beyond the administrative concerns and financial strains, however, the Partition posed another deeper issue. The leaders of the Indian national struggle did not believe in the two-nation theory. And yet, partition on religious basis had taken place. The Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total population in 1951. There were competing political interests behind these conflicts. The Muslim League was formed to protect the interests of the Muslims in colonial India. But most leaders of the national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion.

Q. Why Muslim League was formed?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of the country and the administrative apparatus. What also got divided were the financial assets, and things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band! The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’. Above all, it was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence. Beyond the administrative concerns and financial strains, however, the Partition posed another deeper issue. The leaders of the Indian national struggle did not believe in the two-nation theory. And yet, partition on religious basis had taken place. The Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total population in 1951. There were competing political interests behind these conflicts. The Muslim League was formed to protect the interests of the Muslims in colonial India. But most leaders of the national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion.

Q. What was the number of the people who had to forcefully migrate across new borders?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The Partition was not merely a division of properties, liabilities and assets, or a political division of the country and the administrative apparatus. What also got divided were the financial assets, and things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band! The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’. Above all, it was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence. Beyond the administrative concerns and financial strains, however, the Partition posed another deeper issue. The leaders of the Indian national struggle did not believe in the two-nation theory. And yet, partition on religious basis had taken place. The Muslim population in India accounted for 12 per cent of the total population in 1951. There were competing political interests behind these conflicts. The Muslim League was formed to protect the interests of the Muslims in colonial India. But most leaders of the national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion.

Q. What was the percentage of Muslim population in India in 1951?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The steps for creating a new state are as follows: A bill on a new state has to be recommended by the President. In India, it is usually the Cabinet which requests the President to do that. Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state. President refers the bill to the State Assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time. Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State Assembly. If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the bill could be introduced in the Parliament after the expiry of the specified period. Why did the authors of the constitution put complete responsibility of creating new states ONLY with the Parliament? Why did they not provide a bigger role for a State Assembly other than expressing ‘its views’ on the topic? To understand the intentions behind a certain clause in our Constitution the legal experts refer to the discussions of the authors that preceded the formulation of these clauses referred to as Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). One legal expert clarifies: When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions. Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K. Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory… unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. Take the case of Madras Province for instance. The Andhra’s want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras Legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhra’s is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province.” Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form.

Q. To whom does the President refer the bill after his review?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The steps for creating a new state are as follows: A bill on a new state has to be recommended by the President. In India, it is usually the Cabinet which requests the President to do that. Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state. President refers the bill to the State Assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time. Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State Assembly. If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the bill could be introduced in the Parliament after the expiry of the specified period. Why did the authors of the constitution put complete responsibility of creating new states ONLY with the Parliament? Why did they not provide a bigger role for a State Assembly other than expressing ‘its views’ on the topic? To understand the intentions behind a certain clause in our Constitution the legal experts refer to the discussions of the authors that preceded the formulation of these clauses referred to as Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). One legal expert clarifies: When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions. Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K. Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory… unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. Take the case of Madras Province for instance. The Andhra’s want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras Legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhra’s is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province.” Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form.

Q. Where did the Andhra’s get resolution from?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The steps for creating a new state are as follows: A bill on a new state has to be recommended by the President. In India, it is usually the Cabinet which requests the President to do that. Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state. President refers the bill to the State Assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time. Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State Assembly. If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the bill could be introduced in the Parliament after the expiry of the specified period. Why did the authors of the constitution put complete responsibility of creating new states ONLY with the Parliament? Why did they not provide a bigger role for a State Assembly other than expressing ‘its views’ on the topic? To understand the intentions behind a certain clause in our Constitution the legal experts refer to the discussions of the authors that preceded the formulation of these clauses referred to as Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). One legal expert clarifies: When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions. Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K. Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory… unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. Take the case of Madras Province for instance. The Andhra’s want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras Legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhra’s is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province.” Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form.

Q. In India, who presents the bill for the formation of the new state to the President?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follows:

The steps for creating a new state are as follows: A bill on a new state has to be recommended by the President. In India, it is usually the Cabinet which requests the President to do that. Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state. President refers the bill to the State Assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time. Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State Assembly. If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the bill could be introduced in the Parliament after the expiry of the specified period. Why did the authors of the constitution put complete responsibility of creating new states ONLY with the Parliament? Why did they not provide a bigger role for a State Assembly other than expressing ‘its views’ on the topic? To understand the intentions behind a certain clause in our Constitution the legal experts refer to the discussions of the authors that preceded the formulation of these clauses referred to as Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). One legal expert clarifies: When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions. Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K. Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory… unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. Take the case of Madras Province for instance. The Andhra’s want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras Legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhra’s is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province.” Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form.

Q. “The legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned.” This proposal who put forth by whom in 1948?