The question seeks to identify the "contradictory pulls" on Indian nationalism as described in the provided comprehension passage. The passage elaborates on the dichotomy between material and spiritual spheres within Indian nationalist ideology during the colonial period. The essential point is that while fighting against colonial rule, Indian nationalism felt compelled to adopt certain Western practices, particularly in the material realm such as science and technology. However, it aimed to retain its own spiritual identity distinct from Western influence. This dynamic illustrates the "contradictory pull"—borrowing from the colonizer materially while maintaining spiritual independence.
Despite its fight against colonial domination, Indian nationalism had to borrow from the coloniser in the material sphere.
This option accurately captures the need to adopt Western methods in the material domain while resisting cultural assimilation, as emphasized in the passage.
The passage describes the Indian nationalist movement's framework for addressing the influence of colonialism. It discusses the material/spiritual and outer/inner dichotomies, where the material/outer world represents British/European superiority in science, technology, and statecraft. Indians acknowledged the need to adopt these material aspects but aimed to preserve their spiritual 'inner' identity. Nationalists believed the East had a superior spiritual culture that colonial powers failed to dominate, and preserving this identity was crucial during the national struggle.
The correct choice to weaken the author's claims, which talk about maintaining a distinction between Western materiality and Eastern spirituality, is the option stating:
"The colonial period saw the hybridisation of Indian culture in all realms as it came in contact with British/European culture."
If true, this statement suggests that the distinction between Eastern and Western cultures wasn't maintained; instead, there was hybridization, contradicting the notion of a clear separation and a preserved spiritual identity during colonial times.
To determine which statement about the spiritual/material dichotomy of Indian nationalism is NOT true based on the passage, we need to analyze the details provided in the passage. The passage describes how Indian nationalism included a division of culture into material and spiritual spheres. This separation was used to resist colonial dominance while adopting certain Western techniques without losing cultural identity.
This is true, as the passage explains that the material/spiritual distinction condensed into the ghar (home) and bāhir (world) dichotomy, with spiritual aspects aligning with home and material with the world.
This is the correct answer. The passage does not discuss the spiritual/material dichotomy as a continuation of traditional cultural oppositions. Instead, it introduces this dichotomy as an extension of nationalist thought to counter colonial influence, particularly emphasizing a 'new substance' to these existing categories.
This statement is supported by the passage, as it describes the dichotomy as essential for protecting and strengthening the inner spiritual identity against colonial material dominance.
The passage claims the inner/outer dichotomy (home/world) was ideologically more powerful, showing this statement is true.
The correct option is the statement about the spiritual/material dichotomy representing a continuation of age-old oppositions in Indian culture. The passage emphasizes the dichotomy's new ideological substance introduced during nationalist movements, making this the incorrect statement.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: