Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

The Congress leadership was uncomfortable with both movements because they took forms that went beyond the Congress's ideology of non-violence and constitutional methods, threatening to alienate powerful groups whose support the Congress needed.

In Awadh, peasants attacked the houses of talukdars and merchants, looted bazaars, and seized grain hoards — violent actions the Congress could not approve.

In the Gudem Hills, Alluri Sitaram Raju led a militant guerrilla movement, attacking police stations and killing British officials, asserting that India could be liberated only by force, not non-violence.

In both cases, the common reason for Congress's discomfort was that the movements turned violent, contradicting Gandhi's principle of non-violence, which was central to the national movement.

Source: Chapter 2, Section 2.2 — Rebellion in the Countryside

---

• The examiner wants ONE common thread — violence/departure from non-violence — identified and supported with evidence from BOTH movements.
• Don't just list what happened; explicitly state the common reason.
• The Awadh and Gudem examples must both appear to score full marks.
• Avoid writing that Congress feared losing landlord support for Awadh — that's a secondary point. The primary, common reason across both is the turn to violence against Congress's non-violent programme.