Question

Read the paragraph below and answer the following question.
The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon this standard picture of tribal societies as isolated wholes. The isolationist side argued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hindu and Christian missionaries all of whom were intent on reducing tribals to detribalised landless labour. The integrationists, on the other hand, argued that tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be addressed within the same framework as that of backward classes. This opposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finally settled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes that would enable controlled integration. The subsequent schemes for tribal development - five year plans, tribal sub-plans, tribal welfare blocks, special multipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But the basic issue here is that the integration of tribes has neglected their own needs or desires; integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and for its own benefit. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken away and their communities shattered in the name of development.
The isolationists argued that tribals did not need protection from:

• A. Moneylenders
• B. Traders
• C. Missionaries
• D. Political parties

Hint:

In understanding the historical context of tribal societies, focus on the roles that moneylenders and traders played in their exploitation and how integration with the mainstream society was proposed as a solution.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The isolationists argued that tribals did not need protection from moneylenders, as they were primarily concerned about the exploitation from external traders and missionaries. Therefore, the correct answer is option (1).