Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The Indian government has announced an international competition to design a National War Memorial in New Delhi, to honour all of the Indian soldiers who served in the various wars and counter-insurgency campaigns from 19471947 onwards. The terms of the competition also specified that the new structure would be built adjacent to the India Gate - a memorial to the Indian soldiers who died in the First World War. Between the old imperialist memorial and the proposed nationalist one, India's contribution to the Second World War is airbrushed out of existence.

The Indian government's conception of the war memorial was not merely absent-minded. Rather, it accurately reflected the fact that both academic history and popular memory have yet to come to terms with India's Second World War, which continues to be seen as little more than mood music in the drama of India's advance towards independence and partition in 1947. Further, the political trajectory of the postwar subcontinent has militated against popular remembrance of the war. With partition and the onset of the India-Pakistan rivalry, both of the new nations needed fresh stories for self-legitimisation rather than focusing on shared wartime experiences.

However, the Second World War played a crucial role in both the independence and partition of India. The Indian army recruited, trained and deployed some 2.52.5 million men, almost 90,00090,000 of which were killed and many more injured. Even at the time, it was recognised as the largest volunteer force in the war.

India's material and financial contribution to the war was equally significant. India emerged as a major military-industrial and logistical base for Allied operations in south-east Asia and the Middle East. This led the United States to take considerable interest in the country's future, and ensured that this was no longer the preserve of the British government.

Other wartime developments pointed in the direction of India's independence. In a stunning reversal of its long-standing financial relationship with Britain, India finished the war as one of the largest creditors to the imperial power.

Such extraordinary mobilization for war was achieved at great human cost, with the Bengal famine the most extreme manifestation of widespread wartime deprivation. The costs on India's home front must be counted in millions of lives.

Indians signed up to serve on the war and home fronts for a variety of reasons. Many were convinced that their contribution would open the doors to India's freedom. The political and social churn triggered by the war was evident in the massive waves of popular protest and unrest that washed over rural and urban India in the aftermath of the conflict. This turmoil was crucial in persuading the Attlee government to rid itself of the incubus of ruling India.

The author claims that omitting mention of Indians who served in the Second World War from the new National War Memorial is:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

We need to find what the author says about why Indians from WWII are left out of the new memorial design.

The key is in paragraph 2 where the author explains this omission wasn't accidental.

From passage: "The Indian government's conception of the war memorial was not merely absent-minded. Rather, it accurately reflected the fact that both academic history and popular memory have yet to come to terms with India's Second World War"

The author's logic: Government didn't forget WWII Indians -> Instead, this reflects how academics and regular people still haven't properly understood/accepted India's WWII role -> So the memorial design mirrors this broader societal view.


🟠 Option 1 -> scope-error -> Says "misplaced priorities" but passage doesn't criticize government priorities - it says the omission reflects broader academic/popular views, not government priorities specifically

🟢 Option 2 -> correct -> Directly matches the passage - omission reflects how "academic history and popular memory have yet to come to terms with India's Second World War"

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> context-shift -> Calls the omission "appropriate" and suggests using India Gate instead - completely opposite to author's critical tone and not mentioned anywhere

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> irrelevant -> Talks about future solutions with separate memorial - passage doesn't discuss any remedies or future plans

The confusion students face is usually between Options 1 and 2. But Option 1 focuses on government priorities while the passage clearly states this reflects broader academic/popular views, not just government thinking.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question