History Chapter 2 – Nationalism in India Class10 Notes
Indian nationalism emerged as a powerful force during the struggle for independence against British colonial rule. In Chapter 2 of CBSE Class 10 History, students will explore the key events and movements that shaped India’s fight for freedom, including the Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement. This chapter highlights the role of Congress, the participation of various social groups, and the impact of nationalism on India’s collective consciousness. CBSE & NCERT Class 10 History Notes for Chapter 2 are designed to provide students with concise and comprehensive insights, making them an essential resource for effective exam preparation.
History Chapter 2: Nationalism in India Notes Pdf
Please download Nationalism in India Notes pdf by click on download button next to it.
Write Answer in Brief
a) Why growth of nationalism in the colonies is linked to an anti-colonial movement?
The growth of nationalism in colonies like India is closely linked to anti-colonial movements. Colonial rule led to exploitation and oppression, and as people began to understand the negative impacts of colonialism, they felt a sense of unity. This unity led to the formation of national identities and resistance against colonial powers, aiming for freedom and independence.
b) How the First World War helped in the growth of the National Movement in India?
The First World War led to significant economic and political changes in India. The war caused increased taxes and hardships for common people. Additionally, the British government promised reforms but failed to deliver. This failure, combined with widespread suffering, increased discontent and further fueled the Indian national movement.
c) Why Indians were outraged by the Rowlatt Act?
The Rowlatt Act of 1919 allowed the British government to arrest and detain individuals without trial. It also gave authorities the power to suppress political activities. This caused widespread anger and outrage among Indians as it violated their fundamental rights. Gandhi launched a non-violent protest against the act, marking a significant moment in the national movement.
d) Why Gandhiji decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement?
Gandhiji decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922 after the violent incident at Chauri Chaura, where protesters clashed with the police. Gandhi believed that the movement was turning violent, and as his principle of non-violence was being compromised, he felt it was best to call off the movement until the people were properly trained.
d) Why Gandhiji decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement?
Gandhiji decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922 after the violent incident at Chauri Chaura, where protesters clashed with the police. Gandhi believed that the movement was turning violent, and as his principle of non-violence was being compromised, he felt it was best to call off the movement until the people were properly trained.
2. What is meant by the idea of satyagraha?
Satyagraha, introduced by Mahatma Gandhi, means ‘truth-force’ or ‘soul-force.’ It is the method of non-violent resistance against injustice. It involves peaceful protests, appealing to the oppressor’s conscience, and not using violence. Gandhi believed that through satyagraha, truth would eventually triumph.
3. Write a newspaper report on: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre & The Simon Commission
a) The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
Newspaper Report: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
On April 13, 1919, a horrific incident occurred at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. A large crowd had gathered to protest against the repressive Rowlatt Act. Without any warning, General Dyer and his troops opened fire on the peaceful crowd. Hundreds were killed, and many others injured. This brutal act of violence shocked the entire nation and sparked widespread protests against British rule.
b) The Simon Commission
Newspaper Report: The Simon Commission
In 1928, the Simon Commission arrived in India, led by a British team without a single Indian member. The Commission was met with strong opposition across the country. Indian leaders, including the Congress and the Muslim League, united in protests, demanding Indian representation in the constitutional reform process. The protests were marked by the famous slogan: ‘Simon Go Back.’
4. Compare the images of Bharat Mata in this chapter with the image of Germania in Chapter 1
The image of Bharat Mata in India represents the nation as a mother figure. She is depicted as a peaceful, spiritual figure, symbolizing the nation’s nurturing qualities. In contrast, the image of Germania in Germany is often more militaristic, symbolizing strength and unity. Both images serve as personifications of the nation, but while Bharat Mata represents a motherly, spiritual nation, Germania emphasizes national strength and pride.
Discuss the Question and Write Answer of History Chapter 2 - Nationalism in India
1. List all the different social groups which joined the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921
The Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921 was a major turning point in India’s struggle for independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi. The movement was aimed at protesting against British rule through non-violent means, including boycotting British goods, institutions, and services. Different social groups came together during this movement, each with its own reasons for participation:
- Middle Class: The middle class, including students, teachers, lawyers, and professionals, played a crucial role in the Non-Cooperation Movement. Many of them joined the movement because they were inspired by Gandhi’s call for a boycott of British goods and institutions. They were also frustrated with the British control over education, legal systems, and commerce. By rejecting British-run schools, courts, and businesses, they aimed to weaken British authority and support India’s self-rule.
- Farmers: Farmer (Peasants), especially from rural areas, were drawn to the movement because of their struggle against heavy taxes and land revenue imposed by the British. They were hoping for relief from the exploitative practices of British landlords and the colonial taxation system. Gandhi’s promise to address their grievances helped gain their support. Peasants joined protests, non-cooperation with British authorities, and even engaged in civil disobedience, refusing to pay taxes.
- Workers: Many industrial workers joined the movement in cities like Bombay and Calcutta, where they were protesting against harsh working conditions and the low wages they received under British rule. They also took part in strikes and protests against British-imposed taxes, such as the salt tax. The workers’ participation symbolized their desire for better working conditions and greater political freedom.
Together, these groups reflected a unified front of Indians, each group hoping for better socio-economic conditions and a free India.
2. Discuss the Salt March to make clear why it was an effective symbol of resistance against colonialism
The Salt March (1930), led by Mahatma Gandhi, was one of the most important events in India’s struggle for independence. It was a non-violent protest against the British monopoly on salt production in India. Here’s why it was such an effective symbol of resistance:
- Defying the British Monopoly: The British government had made it illegal for Indians to make or collect their own salt. Instead, Indians had to buy salt from the British government, which imposed a heavy tax on it. Gandhi decided to challenge this tax by walking from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi (about 240 miles) and making his own salt from seawater. This symbolic act of defiance sent a strong message to both the British and Indians about the injustice of colonial rule.
- Uniting the People: The Salt March united Indians from all walks of life. People from different regions, communities, and social classes joined Gandhi in his march, making it a nationwide protest. The march showed that ordinary Indians could stand up to the mighty British empire through peaceful resistance.
- Symbol of Self-Rule: The Salt March was not just about salt, but about asserting India’s right to self-governance. By producing their own salt, Indians were asserting their economic independence from Britain. The march became a powerful symbol of the non-cooperation movement, inspiring millions of people to join the freedom struggle.
In conclusion, the Salt March was highly effective because it was a simple yet powerful act that struck at the heart of British colonial policies, uniting the people and giving them a clear, non-violent method of protest.
3. Imagine you are a woman participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement. Explain what the experience meant to your life.
As a woman participating in the Civil Disobedience Movement, I felt both empowered and proud. At that time, women were largely expected to remain at home and manage household duties, but through this movement, I had the chance to be part of something far bigger—the fight for freedom.
- Breaking Traditional Roles: Joining the movement gave me an opportunity to step out of the traditional role society had set for me. I could now take part in protests, meetings, and rallies, and I felt that I was contributing to the freedom struggle. It was an act of rebellion not only against British rule but also against the social expectations placed on women at that time.
- Empowerment through Action: By actively participating in civil disobedience, like boycotting British goods or participating in protests, I felt a sense of empowerment. I was not only fighting for my country’s freedom but also challenging the norms of a patriarchal society.
- A Sense of Purpose: This movement helped me feel that my life had a purpose beyond domesticity. It was fulfilling to stand alongside other women and men in solidarity, with one common goal—freedom. It was a difficult journey, but the experience strengthened my belief in non-violent resistance and made me proud of my contribution to India’s independence.
4. Why did political leaders differ sharply over the question of separate electorates?
The issue of separate electorates was a contentious one in India during the nationalist movement. The separate electorate system proposed that certain communities, such as Muslims and Dalits, should have their own separate representation in the legislative assemblies, rather than being part of a common electorate.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s View: Dr. Ambedkar, a leader of the Dalits, supported separate electorates for Dalits, believing that it was necessary to ensure their political and social rights were protected. He feared that if Dalits were placed in a common electorate, they would be dominated by the upper-caste Hindus and not get a fair representation.
- Gandhi’s View: Mahatma Gandhi, on the other hand, opposed separate electorates for Dalits because he believed it would divide the country along caste lines. Gandhi argued that untouchables (whom he called Harijans, or “children of God”) should be treated as an integral part of the Hindu community. He believed in social reform and integration rather than separation.
The Debate: This difference in opinion between Ambedkar and Gandhi led to sharp debates over how the political system should represent all sections of society. Gandhi fasted to protest against separate electorates for Dalits, arguing that it would create division in society. The Poona Pact of 1932 was an agreement that led to the creation of a separate reserved seat system for Dalits in the general electorate, which both Gandhi and Ambedkar agreed upon
Project on History Class 10 Chapter 2
Find out about the anti-colonial movement in Indo-China. Compare and contrast India’s national movement with the ways in which Indo-China became independent.
The anti-colonial movement in Indo-China was primarily a struggle against French colonial rule. Unlike India’s relatively peaceful path to independence, Indo-China (particularly Vietnam) witnessed a more violent resistance. Here are the key aspects of the anti-colonial movement in Indo-China:
Colonial Background:
France colonized Vietnam and other parts of Indo-China (Laos and Cambodia). The French exploited the region economically, taking control of resources and suppressing local culture and autonomy.
The French rule was harsh, marked by economic exploitation, the forced cultivation of crops, and significant social inequality. Many Vietnamese were discontent with this colonial system.
Resistance Movements:
The first major resistance against French rule came from the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religious movements, which were later joined by various nationalist groups.
The Indochinese Communist Party (ICP), led by Ho Chi Minh, played a pivotal role in mobilizing the masses. Ho Chi Minh became the central figure in leading the fight for Vietnam’s independence.
The Role of Ho Chi Minh:
Ho Chi Minh, who spent years in exile, returned to lead the resistance. He worked with other nationalist groups to unite the Vietnamese population under the banner of communism and independence.
He advocated for armed struggle against the French, establishing guerilla warfare tactics.
The First Indochina War (1946-1954):
The First Indochina War saw intense fighting between Vietnamese nationalists (mainly the Viet Minh) and the French forces.
After significant losses, the French were forced to negotiate and, in 1954, at the Geneva Conference, France agreed to grant Vietnam independence, splitting the country into North and South Vietnam.
Comparison with India’s National Movement:
India’s struggle for independence, while also marked by resistance against British colonial rule, was largely non-violent and took a different route compared to Indo-China’s more violent struggle. Here are the main differences and similarities:
Similarities:
Colonial Exploitation:
Both India and Indo-China suffered from economic exploitation under colonial powers. The French in Indo-China, like the British in India, focused on extracting resources for their benefit while imposing harsh taxes on the local population.
Formation of Nationalist Movements:
In both regions, nationalist movements emerged as responses to colonial oppression. In India, this was led by the Indian National Congress (INC) and Mahatma Gandhi, while in Indo-China, it was led by the Communist Party and Ho Chi Minh.
Foreign Support:
Both countries sought international support for their independence. India gained global attention through peaceful protests, while Vietnam gained support from communist nations, especially from China and Soviet Russia during the Cold War.
Differences:
Methods of Resistance:
India’s movement was largely non-violent, particularly under Gandhi’s leadership, with strategies like civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and boycotts. Gandhi’s principle of satyagraha (truth force) focused on non-violence and peaceful protests.
In contrast, Indo-China’s movement was marked by armed struggle, particularly after the formation of the Indochinese Communist Party. Ho Chi Minh’s leadership was focused on guerilla warfare, especially in the early stages, and the Viet Minh used force to challenge French rule.
Role of Leaders:
India had leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose who pushed for political unity and non-violent protests.
In Indo-China, Ho Chi Minh was the leading figure who advocated for armed struggle and communist ideology. The focus was on unification under a communist government, contrasting with India’s more inclusive vision that sought a democratic republic.
Outcome of Struggles:
India’s independence in 1947 resulted from years of non-violent protest and political negotiations. Gandhi’s leadership and the support of various social groups helped India achieve freedom without large-scale violence (except for the partition riots).
Indo-China’s path to independence involved military conflict, particularly the First Indochina War, which led to the French withdrawal after 1954. However, this led to the division of Vietnam into North Vietnam (communist) and South Vietnam (pro-Western), setting the stage for later conflicts, including the Vietnam War.
Conclusion:
While both India and Indo-China fought for independence from colonial powers, their methods and outcomes were very different. India’s struggle for independence was based on non-violence and political unity, whereas Indo-China’s fight, particularly in Vietnam, was marked by armed resistance and communist ideologies. Both movements, however, were driven by a shared desire for freedom, self-determination, and the end of colonial exploitation.