AA

Aditya AgarwalAIR 1· 2024

GS2GS2

Modern universities serve a large body of students and teachers along with a host of books in the libraries. Examine the differences with modern universities in highlighting the differences in terms of funding, autonomy, structure and overall approach to learning.

Open scan (p.29)

Introduction

The revolutionary movement (1920-1930s) came out as reaction of the failure of Non-Cooperation Movement and disillusionment with the gandhian method of Non-violence.

22 words

Main Body

ii) Education as an end in itself rather than means to an end.

iii) Highly educated scholars taking up the functioning of teaching students

iv) Focus on research and development.

v) Multi disciplinary approach.

vi) Autonomy to the institution to manage their own affairs.

The Nalanda and Takshashila functioned as greater centers of learning and were functioning over several centuries.

The revival of Nalanda Mahaviharas in Bihar with the help of several other countries - such as Southeast Asian countries paves to collaboration and revival of center culture of learning.

Revolutionary movement (1920-1930s) were seen in the incidents such as Kakori train robbery, Maniratoba garden conspiracy, bombing of the legislative assembly and killing of several prominent figures such as Col. Saunders.

There were in contrast to the Gandhian non-violent struggle.

Gandhian Philosophy:

Non-violence at its core
Peaceful protest
Non-cooperation with the British
Mass generation of political consciousness among people

Gandhiji followed the idea of petition → protest → petition

However revolutionary movement was ideologically different because of the following :-

Believed in violent means to attain objective of achieving freedom.

Believed in the individual action rather than the masses.

British rule as evil and should be acted by force only.

Despite different approaches, there were similarities in the ideologies too:-

Courage of every Indian as the force behind struggle.

British rule was considered evil by both.

Swaraj as the end goal.

No harm to innocents

Making the 'deaf' head though means were different.

Principles of secularism and communal harmony.

The ideologies influenced each other as can be seen from the following :-

i) Use of non-violent means by revolutionaries (eg Bombing of Assembly using fake bombs - to protest against the Public Safety Bill)

ii) Spreading the message of socialism by revolutionaries. (eg Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA))

iii) Gandhiji observed that violence was not easy in gandagraha — belief in individual action.

iv) Gandhiji's motto of "Do or die" by Gandhi

v) The motto of "Do or die" by Gandhi

Today, the ideologies of Bhagat Singh (revolutionary) and Gandhi have influenced our value system. It can be seen in the India's "No First Use" nuclear deterrent policy.

— Aditya Agarwal · AIR 1

370 words10 paragraphs4 bullet points

Conclusion

Today, the ideologies of Bhagat Singh (revolutionary) and Gandhi have influenced our value system. It can be seen in the India's 'No First Use' nuclear deterrent policy.

27 words

Diagram

Mind map showing Gandhi's philosophy with branches: Non-violence at its core, Peaceful protest, Non-cooperation with the British, Mass generation of political consciousness among people

This is a continuation from previous page
Examiner score
0.3/10

Open original scan

Page 29

Steal this copy's techniques PremiumAI pulls out the reusable moves — pick the ones you want as flashcards
Compare my answer PremiumSee where this topper beats you

Topper

Aditya Agarwal

AIR 12024

Subject & Paper

GS2GS2

Topic

Education

Higher Education

Comparative Higher Education Systems

Writing Stats

419

Total words

10

Paragraphs

4

Bullets

Linked PYQ

5. Answer the questions that follow this passage : 10x5=50 It is worth attempting some head-on thoughts about 'meaning'. Confronted with passages of text you may sometimes face a choice between leading questions : 'what does it mean' versus 'how does it work'. It will be evident that words and phrases carry lexical meanings, sometimes in multiple array of possible signifying activities, sometimes also echoing other literary or historical usage. It will be evident too that what words mean is a different question from what a text-passage means; or what are the meanings at work in a whole literary composition, its thematic conflicts and developments and layers of interpretation. Also a further complication arises when we speak of what a person means, of his or her intention to be understood in a certain way, through speech or action; thus concerning Cordelia's silence in King Lear we may ask two slightly but importantly different questions : what does her silence mean, and what does she mean by her silence. In drama, these issues can be especially acute : what a particular speech 'means' will vary amongst its onstage auditors, some of whom may be more inward than others with part hidden purposes; and for the larger audience an initial array of distinct possible or probable meanings may be modified in retrospect by later disclosures or the 'dramatic irony' of subsequent events. It is fairly unlikely that questions of the playwright's own meaning or meaning-intention will feature strongly in this interplay of interpretation, though the choice of topic may indicate certain possible motives in the context of the times. Where personal character is represented as a focus for point-of-view interaction, as in narrative fiction, again what is meant may be an aspect of what this person means, in speech and action, or what this person is capable of successfully wishing to mean, depending on self-knowledge and expressed in the sense of actions consequentially undertaken, such actions then interpreted by others from differing viewpoints along significantly divergent lines. The resulting social complex of behavior, and the novelist's construction of an extended meaning-process in many strands, give the reader much work for imaginative and emotional intelligence, for sympathy tempered by judgment. Linguists and philosophers of language, and even lawyers, sometimes speak of 'plain sense', normative or 'ordinary-language' meaning; but students of literature know well that literary language is not ordinary, even when it adopts for stylistic purposes the speech patterns of natural utterance. Patterns of symbolism or constructed allegory, especially in pre-modern works, or tragic foreclosure in tightly plotted drama, may also require us to read for the sense of the design along more or less genre-specific lines of construal, just as earlier communities once read the pattern of daily events in terms of a directing providence. Both grammar and syntax inflect the stylistic pitch and meaning-effects of writing, and formal devices like prosody and meter and figuration will alert the reader to further aspects of meaning carried by structure and form—bringing into view what may be meant by 'carried' in this context. Richness of meaning may challenge or even defeat coherence of design; or it may reveal ordered depths of multiple significance (polysemy, ambiguity), or layers of structure and structure-echo, so that successive readings and succeeding generations of readers can discover constantly new insights and rewards. (a) What possible meanings exist beyond mere lexical meaning? (b) How differently significant are the two questions concerning Cordelia's silence in King Lear? (c) What special meaning to a speech does 'dramatic irony' give? (d) In what way is the meaning of a character's utterance limited and limiting in narrative fiction? (e) Explain the phrase 'the sense of the design'.

50M2013Answer the questions