खालील उतारा काळजीपूर्वक वाचा आणि त्यावर आधारित विचारलेल्या प्रश्नाचे (प्र. १ ते ५) योग्य उत्तर निवडा:
गांधीजींनी अहिंसेचा एक तत्व म्हणून स्वीकार केला होता. अहिंसा हे गांधीजींच्या जीवनाचे एक अंगच होते. परंतु काँग्रेसमधील त्यांच्या बहुतेक समकालीनांना चित्तरंजनदास, मोतीलाल नेहरू, जवाहरलाल नेहरू, मौलाना आझाद, सरदार पटेल, आचार्य नरेंद्र देव आणि इतरांना अहिंसा ही एक धोरणात्मक बाब वाटत असे. राजकीय धोरण व राजकीय कृती या नात्याने अहिंसा ही काँग्रेसच्या रणनीतीचा एक अंगभूत भाग होती. खरे तर काही आवश्यक बाबतीत 'व्यापक जनसंघटनांच्या आधारे चालविण्यात येणारी एक वर्चस्ववादी चळवळ' या भारतीय राष्ट्रीय चळवळीच्या स्वरूपाचा, अहिंसा एक अंगभूत भाग होती. वर्चस्ववादी जनआंदोलनाच्या स्वरूपामुळेच अहिंसा राष्ट्रीय चळवळीचा एक मूलभूत घटक ठरली होती.
चळवळीने अहिंसक प्रकार स्वीकारल्याने सर्वसामान्य जनतेला या चळवळीत सहभागी होता आले. हिंसक चळवळीमध्ये तिला अशा रीतीने सहभागी होणे शक्य झाले नसते. स्त्रियांच्या सहभागाबाबत ही गोष्ट विशेष खरी होती. सशस्त्र लढ्यात स्त्रियांना मोठ्या संख्येने सहभागी होणे अवघड गेले असते. तथापि, यातना सहन करण्याच्या, लाठीमाराला तोंड देण्याचा, उन्हाळ्यात किंवा हिवाळ्यात तासन्तास निदर्शने करण्याच्या बाबतीत स्त्रिया पुरुषांपेक्षा कदाचित अधिक प्रबळ होत्या. चळवळीच्या व राजकीय वर्तनाच्या अहिंसक प्रकाराचा संबंध वसाहतवादी राज्याच्या अर्ध-वर्चस्ववादी, अर्ध-एकाधिकारशाही स्वरूपाशी व ब्रिटनमधील राजकीय व्यवहाराच्या लोकशाही स्वभावाशी होता. सर्वात महत्वाचे म्हणजे नैतिक शक्तीच्या मैदानात लढणे असा अहिंसेचा अर्थ होता. सर्वसामान्यांच्या अहिंसक चळवळी वसाहतवादी अधिकाऱ्यांना नेहमीच अडचणीत टाकतात. शांतताप्रिय सत्याग्रहींवर बलप्रयोग झाल्यावर पाशवी शक्ती ही वसाहतवादी राज्याच्या सत्तेचा खरा आधार आहे, हे उघड होते. खरे तर, सर्वसामान्यांची चळवळ राज्यकर्त्यांसमोर एक शृंगापत्ती उभी करते. ती चळवळ शांततामय असल्याने दडपून टाकण्याची त्यांची तयारी नसल्यास ते आपल्या वर्चस्वाचा एक महत्वाचा भाग गमावून बसतात; कारण आंदोलनकर्ते प्रचलित वसाहतवादी कायद्याचा भंग करीतच असतात. त्यांच्याविरुद्ध कारवाई न केल्यास वसाहतवादी सरकारने आपला प्रशासकीय अधिकार सोडला असून त्याची राज्य करण्याची क्षमता नाही, असाच संदेश त्यातून जातो. त्यांनी बलप्रयोगाने चळवळ दडपली, तरी त्यांचीच हार होते; कारण एका शांततापूर्ण चळवळीचा व अहिंसक मार्गाने कायदा मोडणाऱ्यांचा बंदोबस्त बलप्रयोगाने करणे नैतिकदृष्ट्या समर्थनीय ठरत नाही. जनसामान्यांच्या अहिंसावादी चळवळीसमोर राज्यकर्त्यांचा कधीच विजय होत नाही. दुसऱ्या बाजूला राष्ट्रीय चळवळीकडे विजयी होणारी रणनीती असते. सर्वसामान्यांच्या अहिंसक चळवळीला आम जनतेचा पाठिंबा असतो. तिच्यापुढे अर्ध-लोकशाही राजवटीची काहीच मात्रा चालत नाही. व्यवहारात वसाहतवादी अधिकारी नेहमीच दोलायमान अवस्थेत हेलकावत राहतात आणि शेवटी बहुतेक वेळा चळवळ दडपून टाकतात. अहिंसक चळवळ दडपून टाकल्याने त्यांची प्रतिमा डागाळते; एक प्रकारे त्यांच्या वर्चस्वालाच धक्का पोहोचतो. ताकद व जबरदस्ती हाच वसाहतवादी राजवटीचा खरा आधार असल्याचे उघडकीस येते. परिणामी वसाहतवादी राजवटीचे वर्चस्व किंवा तिचा नैतिक आधार कणाकणाने नष्ट होत जातो.
असत्य विधान ओळखा.
EN
Read the following passage carefully and answer the question (Q. 1 to 5):
For Gandhiji non-violence was a matter of principle. But for most of his contemporaries in the Congress—C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, Acharya Narendra Dev and so on—it was a matter of policy. As policy and as form of political action and behaviour, it was an essential component of the overall strategy of the National Congress. In fact, non-violence was in some essential ways integral to the nature of the Indian National Movement as a hegemonic movement based on wide mass mobilization. It was because of this hegemonic and mass character of the National Movement that non-violence became one of its basic elements.
The adoption of non-violent forms of struggle enabled the participation of the mass of the people who could not have participated in a similar manner in a movement that adopted violent forms. This was particularly true of women's participation. Women would have found it difficult to join an armed struggle in large numbers. But when it came to undergoing suffering, facing lathi charges, picketing for hours on end in the summer or the winter, women were probably stronger than men. Non-violence as a form of struggle and political behaviour was also linked to the semi-hegemonic, semi-authoritarian character of colonial state and the democratic character of the polity in Britain. Non-violence meant above all fighting on the terrain of moral force. Non-violent mass movements placed the colonial authorities in the wrong and exposed the underpinning of colonial state power in brute force, when the authorities used armed force against peaceful Satyagrahis. In fact a non-violent mass movement put the rulers on the horns of a dilemma. If they hesitated to suppress it because it was peaceful, they lost an important part of their hegemony, because the civil resisters did break existing colonial laws; not to take action against them amounted to the abdication of administrative authority and a confession of the lack of strength to rule. If they suppressed the movement by use of force, they still lost, for it was morally difficult to justify the suppression of a peaceful movement and non-violent law-breakers through the use of force. They were in a no-win situation. The National Movement had, on the other hand, a winning strategy; a semi-democratic rule had no answer to a mass movement that was non-violent and had massive popular support. In practice the colonial authorities constantly vacillated between the two choices, usually plumbing in the end for suppression. By taking recourse to suppression of a non-violent movement, they had to suffer constant erosion of hegemony by exposing the basic underpinning of colonial rule in force and coercion. Consequently, the hegemony of colonial rule or its moral basis was destroyed bit by bit. Identify the incorrect statement.
The adoption of non-violent forms of struggle enabled the participation of the mass of the people who could not have participated in a similar manner in a movement that adopted violent forms. This was particularly true of women's participation. Women would have found it difficult to join an armed struggle in large numbers. But when it came to undergoing suffering, facing lathi charges, picketing for hours on end in the summer or the winter, women were probably stronger than men. Non-violence as a form of struggle and political behaviour was also linked to the semi-hegemonic, semi-authoritarian character of colonial state and the democratic character of the polity in Britain. Non-violence meant above all fighting on the terrain of moral force. Non-violent mass movements placed the colonial authorities in the wrong and exposed the underpinning of colonial state power in brute force, when the authorities used armed force against peaceful Satyagrahis. In fact a non-violent mass movement put the rulers on the horns of a dilemma. If they hesitated to suppress it because it was peaceful, they lost an important part of their hegemony, because the civil resisters did break existing colonial laws; not to take action against them amounted to the abdication of administrative authority and a confession of the lack of strength to rule. If they suppressed the movement by use of force, they still lost, for it was morally difficult to justify the suppression of a peaceful movement and non-violent law-breakers through the use of force. They were in a no-win situation. The National Movement had, on the other hand, a winning strategy; a semi-democratic rule had no answer to a mass movement that was non-violent and had massive popular support. In practice the colonial authorities constantly vacillated between the two choices, usually plumbing in the end for suppression. By taking recourse to suppression of a non-violent movement, they had to suffer constant erosion of hegemony by exposing the basic underpinning of colonial rule in force and coercion. Consequently, the hegemony of colonial rule or its moral basis was destroyed bit by bit. Identify the incorrect statement.