Match List-I (Member) with List-II (View in the debates).
| List-I | List-II |
|---|---|
| (A) B. Pocker Bahadur | (I) The term minorities should be interpreted in economic terms |
| (B) R.V. Dhulekar | (II) Only separate electorates would give Muslims a meaningful voice in governance |
| (C) Govind Ballabh Pant | (III) Thinking always in terms of communities and never of citizens is an unwholesome habit |
| (D) N.G. Ranga | (IV) The British had used safeguards to lull the minorities |
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → A-II, B-IV, C-III, D-I
| List-I | List-II | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| (A) B. Pocker Bahadur | (II) Only separate electorates would give Muslims a meaningful voice in governance | Bahadur demanded separate electorates. He felt only they would give Muslims a real voice in running the country. |
| (B) R.V. Dhulekar | (IV) The British had used safeguards to lull the minorities | Dhulekar told Bahadur that the English had played their game under the cover of safeguards and lulled the minorities. |
| (C) Govind Ballabh Pant | (III) Thinking always in terms of communities and never of citizens is an unwholesome habit | Pant wanted people to think as citizens of one State. He called thinking only in terms of communities unwholesome. |
| (D) N.G. Ranga | (I) The term minorities should be interpreted in economic terms | Ranga, a socialist, said the real minorities were the poor and the downtrodden, so the term should be read in economic terms. |
NCERT (2026-27): “3.1 The problem with separate electorates … “This demand for separate electorates provoked anger and dismay amongst most nationalists. In the passionate debate that followed, a range of arguments were offered against the demand. Most nationalists saw separate electorates as a measure deliberately introduced by the British to divide the people. “The English played their game under the cover of safeguards,” R.V. Dhulekar told Bahadur. “With the help of it they allured you (the minorities) to a long lull. Give it up now … Now there is no one to misguide you.” …” “Behind all these arguments was the concern with the making of a unified nation state. In order to build political unity and forge a nation, every individual had to be moulded into a citizen of the State, each group had to be assimilated within the nation. The Constitution would grant to citizens rights, but citizens had to offer their loyalty to the State. Communities could be recognised as cultural entities and assured cultural rights. Politically, however, members of all communities had to act as equal members of one State, or else there would be divided loyalties. “There is the unwholesome and to some extent degrading habit of thinking always in terms of communities and never in terms of citizens,” said Pant. …” |