Champaran 1917: Which Explanation Does the Evidence Actually Support?
In a Class X history exhibition at Motihari, three groups make different claims about why the Champaran indigo cultivators' protest of 1917 succeeded. Group A argues that it succeeded because Gandhi was a London-trained barrister who understood British law. Group B argues that it succeeded because the tinkathia system, under which a tenant had to grow indigo on three kathas out of every twenty, was already collapsing before 1917 as synthetic dyes cut indigo prices. Group C argues that it succeeded because peasants themselves gave evidence: some six thousand statements were recorded in village after village, and this forced the government to appoint the Champaran Agrarian Committee. On the table are three exhibits only: a 1916 planters' association minute complaining of falling indigo prices, a 1917 official report, and a bundle of translated peasant depositions. The judge asks every group to defend its claim using only these exhibits, and to state one finding that would weaken its own case.
1. Rank the three claims from best to least supported by the three exhibits on the table. Justify the ranking by the kind of evidence each claim needs, not by what you already believe about 1917.
Read the worked answer
Group C's claim has the shortest gap between evidence and conclusion: the depositions are the peasants' own statements, and the official report is the document that announces the inquiry, so the exhibits directly show peasants speaking and a committee being set up. The link is short, though still causal and therefore arguable.
Group B is suggestive but not proved. The planters' minute shows a motive to abandon indigo (falling prices); it does not show that planters in Champaran actually reduced indigo cultivation before 1917. Motive plus opportunity is not action.
Group A is weakest. None of the three exhibits records Gandhi's legal work or shows it changing an outcome; the depositions point towards peasant mobilisation as the working force. A good answer adds the caution that all three may be partly true, and that the official report is a government source written by the side being criticised, so it may understate pressure.
2. Group C wants to add one more document. Which strengthens their claim more: (a) two hundred more peasant depositions from a fifth village, or (b) a British planter's private letter complaining that the inquiry was forced on them? Explain your choice.
Read the worked answer
(b) is stronger, and the reasoning is about what is missing, not about quantity. Group C's weak point is the causal step: peasant evidence existed, therefore the government acted. More depositions from another village make the same point again - they add volume but not independence, and a fifth village chosen by the students may simply repeat their selection bias.
A planter's private letter complaining that the inquiry was forced on them is an admission against interest. A hostile source conceding that pressure worked is more credible on exactly that point than a friendly source asserting it, because the planter had every reason to say the opposite. It also dates the government's decision to the period of peasant activity.
The general principle worth stating in the answer: corroboration from an independent and unsympathetic source beats repetition from the same kind of source.