‘‘The Salt March of 1930 was the first event that brought Mahatma Gandhi to world attention.’’ Justify the statement with reference to its significance.
OR
‘‘Many historians are sceptical of oral history of the partition of India.’’ Justify the statement with suitable arguments.
Mahatma Gandhi was a well known figure in British India and his ideas for Satyagraha was being adopted by many Indians across the country. Monopoly of salt by the British was seen by him as a symbol of oppression towards the poor Indian villagers and producers. The British had made it illegal for anyone to produce salt even for domestic purposes. This salt was then sold by British by imposing high taxes.
Mahatma Gandhi has sent several warnings to the British officials about his intentions, but many of them ignored the call and didn’t took any interest.
On 12th March’ 1930 Mahatma Gandhi from his ashram in Sabarmati travelled on foot to the coast of Dandi. While travelling he came across various towns and villages and urged the people to join together and fight against the British. Upon reaching the coast of Dandi he made a handful of salt, which made him a criminal in the eyes of law.
Several people all over the country also started to resist against the British by making salt. Gandhi was jailed following the many revolts. And so, the salt march of 1930 was the first event that brought Mahatma Gandhi to world attention.
OR
The oral history of partition has succeeded on reflecting light on the experiences of men and women whose stories have been ignored, taken for granted or just mentioned in the passing in the mainstream history. But still many historians are sceptical of oral history of partition due to its lack of correctness nature and it being chronologically imprecise. There are many problems when it comes to oral history as compared to the written history. Oral history’s precision depends upon factors like whether the protagonist of the story shares in-depth information, or holds back information due to its traumatic nature. Many times interviewers have to build a rapport for accessing any information. The information can also, be skewed due to a person’s age or memory. Historians have also, argued that these micro-information doesn’t give us the big picture and makes generalisation difficult.
Due to these factors historians are often sceptical of oral history even though it gives us the understanding of the suffering of the people who lived during those traumatic times.
Couldn't generate an explanation.
Generated by AI. May contain inaccuracies — always verify with your textbook.