List of top Current Affairs Questions on Historical Events asked in CLAT

The adoption of the Non-Cooperation Movement by the Congress gave it a new energy and from January 1921, it began to register considerable success all over the country. Gandhiji undertook a nation-wide tour during which he addressed hundreds of meetings and met a large number of political workers. In the first month, thousands of students left their educational institutions and joined more than 800 national schools and colleges that had sprung up all over the country. Gandhiji had promised Swaraj within a year, if his programme was adopted.
The Non-Cooperation Movement demonstrated that it commanded the support and sympathy of vast sections of the Indian people. Its reach among many sections of Indian peasants, workers, artisans etc., had been demonstrated. The spatial spread of the movement was also nationwide. Some areas were more active than others, but there were few that showed no signs of activity at all.
The capacity of the ‘poor dumb millions’ of India to take part in modern nationalist politics was also demonstrated. This was the first time that nationalists from the towns, students from schools and colleges or even the educated and politically aware in the villages had made a serious attempt to bring the ideology and the movement into their midst.
The tremendous participation of different communities in the movement, and the maintenance of communal unity, despite the Malabar developments, was in itself no mean achievement. There is hardly any doubt that it was minority participation that gave the movement its truly mass character in many areas. And it was, indeed, unfortunate that this most positive feature of the movement was not to be repeated in later years once communalism began to take its toll. [324 words]
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from India’s Struggle for Independence 1857-1947, by Bipin Chandra and Others, Penguin Books, 1989.]
In 1973, only 45 of the world's 151 countries were counted as 'free' by Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that produces quantitative measures of civil and political rights for countries around the world. The following generation saw momentous political change, with democracies and market-oriented economies spreading in virtually every part of the world except for the Arab Middle East. This transformation was Samuel Huntington’s third wave of democratization: liberal democracy as the default form of government became part of the accepted political landscape at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Underlying these changes in political systems was a massive social transformation as well. The shift to democracy was a result of millions of formerly passive individuals around the world organizing themselves and participating in the political life of their societies. This social mobilization was driven by a host of factors: greatly expanded access to education that made people more aware of themselves and the political world around them; information technology, which facilitated the rapid spread of ideas and knowledge; cheap travel and communications that allowed people to vote with their feet if they didn’t like their government; and greater prosperity, which induced people to demand better protection of their rights.
The third wave crested after the late 1990s; however, a ‘democratic recession’ emerged in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Approximately one in five countries that had been part of the third wave either reverted to authoritarianism or saw a significant erosion of democratic institutions. Freedom House noted that 2009 marked the fourth consecutive year in which freedom had declined around the world, the first time this had happened since it established its measures of freedom in 1973. [279 words]
[Extracted from The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama]
During the First World War, Indian merchants and industrialists wanted protection against imports of foreign goods, and a rupee-sterling foreign exchange ratio that would discourage imports. To organise business interests, they formed the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress in 1920 and the Federation of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) in 1927. The industrialists attacked colonial control over the Indian economy and supported the Civil Disobedience Movement when it was first launched. They gave financial assistance and refused to buy or sell imported goods. After the failure of the Round Table Conference, business groups were no longer uniformly enthusiastic. They were apprehensive of the spread of militant activities, and worried about prolonged disruption of business, as well as of the growing influence of socialism amongst the younger members of the Congress.
The industrial working classes did not participate in the Civil Disobedience Movement in large numbers, except in the Nagpur region. As the industrialists came closer to the Congress, workers stayed aloof. But inspite of that, some workers did participate in the Civil Disobedience Movement, selectively adopting some of the ideas of the Gandhian programme, like boycott of foreign goods, as part of their own movements against low wages and poor working conditions. There were strikes by railway workers in 1930 and dockworkers in 1932. In 1930, thousands of workers in Chotanagpur tin mines wore Gandhi caps and participated in protest rallies and boycott campaigns. But the Congress was reluctant to include workers' demands as part of its programme of struggle. It felt that this would alienate industrialists and divide the anti-imperial forces.
Another important feature of the Civil Disobedience Movement was the large-scale participation of women. During Gandhiji's salt march, thousands of women came out of their homes to listen to him. They participated in protest marches, manufactured salt, and picketed foreign cloth and liquor shops. Many went to jail.
[Excerpt from Chapter II - Nationalism in India, India and the Contemporary World, NCERT]