Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

The Civil Disobedience Movement united various groups against colonial rule, but each group had different, often conflicting, understandings of swaraj — making it difficult for the Congress to sustain unity.

Rich peasants (Patidars of Gujarat, Jats of UP) joined to fight high revenue demands caused by the Depression. When the movement was called off in 1931 without revenue revision, they felt betrayed and refused to rejoin in 1932.

Industrial workers largely stayed aloof because the Congress prioritised industrialists over workers' demands for better wages. Including workers' demands would have alienated business supporters, so Congress deliberately excluded them.

Dalits, led by Ambedkar, sought political empowerment through separate electorates rather than symbolic inclusion. Their limited participation — especially in Maharashtra — reflected distrust of a Congress they felt had long ignored them.

Women participated in large numbers but Congress wanted only their symbolic presence, not leadership roles, showing their inclusion was conditional.

The Congress continuously tried to balance these competing demands, ensuring no group's aspirations alienated another. But this balancing act meant compromise, causing phases of disunity and inner conflict after every high point of the movement.

Source: Chapter 2, Sections 3.2 and 3.3 (Nationalism in India)

---

• The examiner expects at least three groups with specific examples — name the groups, give concrete examples (Patidars, Ambedkar/Poona Pact, workers' exclusion), and link each to the central challenge for Congress.
• The key concept to hit: different groups defined swaraj differently, so satisfying one risked alienating another — that's the "fundamental challenge."
• End with the conclusion from the chapter: unity was fragile and cyclical.
• Avoid listing too broadly; depth on 3–4 groups beats shallow coverage of all.