Q.Read the following passage and answer the questions below:
“In the history of nation-building only the Soviet experiment bears comparison with the Indian. There too, a sense of unity had to be forged between many diverse ethnic groups, religious, linguistic communities and social classes. The scale – geographic as well as demographic – was comparably massive. The raw material the state had to work with was equally unpropitious: a people divided by faith and driven by debt and disease.” — Ramachandra Guha

1. The author points out three commonalities between India and the Soviet Union. First, both had to forge a sense of unity among diverse ethnic groups, religious communities, linguistic communities, and social classes — in India, this meant integrating groups like the Tamils, Hindus, Muslims, and various castes. Second, both were comparably massive in geographic and demographic scale — India’s vast territory and population of over 300 million at independence mirrors this. Third, both states had to work with unpropitious raw material: a people divided by faith and driven by debt and disease — in India, this refers to the deep religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims after Partition, widespread poverty, and health crises like malaria and tuberculosis.
2. Two key dissimilarities are: (1) The Soviet Union used a centrally planned, authoritarian state with one-party rule and suppression of dissent to forge unity, while India adopted a democratic, multi-party system with fundamental rights and federalism. (2) The Soviet experiment forcibly suppressed ethnic and linguistic identities (e.g., Russification policies), whereas India officially recognised linguistic states and accommodated diversity through a federal structure and cultural autonomy. …

Let us step into the historian’s chair and examine this passage carefully. Ramachandra Guha draws a striking parallel between the Indian and Soviet experiments in nation-building. He is not saying they were identical, but that the scale and difficulty of the task were comparable. Both states inherited a “raw material” that was deeply fractured — a people divided not just by geography, but by faith, language, ethnicity, and class. The core challenge was the same: how do you take a collection of disparate groups and forge a single, unified nation?

1. The Commonalities Between India and the Soviet Union The author lists three specific commonalities. Let us unpack each one and ground it in the Indian context. First, the need to forge unity among diverse ethnic, religious, linguistic, and social groups. In India, this was the central problem at independence. The country was a mosaic of hundreds of princely states, major religious communities (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, etc.), dozens of major languages (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, etc.), and a rigid caste hierarchy. The task was to make all these groups feel they belonged to one nation. Second, the massive scale — both geographic and demographic. India’s territory stretched from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean, and its population in 1947 was over 300 million people, making it one of the most populous and geographically diverse countries in the world. Administering such a vast land with poor infrastructure was a herculean task. Third, the unpropitious raw material: a people divided by faith and driven by debt and disease. The Partition of 1947 had just torn the subcontinent apart along religious lines, leaving deep scars of violence and mistrust. Furthermore, the vast majority of Indians lived in poverty, were illiterate, and suffered from chronic diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. The new state had to build a nation from a position of extreme weakness, not strength.
   Note

   The author’s phrase “driven by debt and disease” is a powerful reminder that nation-building is not just about politics and borders — it is about lifting millions out of material misery. Both India and the USSR began with populations that were desperately poor and unhealthy.

2. Two Dissimilarities the Author Does Not Mention While the passage focuses on similarities, the two experiments diverged sharply in their methods and outcomes. Here are two critical dissimilarities. First, the political system. The Soviet Union was a one-party state under the Communist Party, with no political opposition, no free press, and no democratic elections. Power was concentrated in the hands of a small elite. India, in contrast, chose a democratic, multi-party system with universal adult franchise, a free press, an independent judiciary, and regular elections. This was a fundamental difference in how the state approached the task of unification. Second, the economic model. The Soviet Union adopted a command economy where the state owned all means of production, abolished private property, and forcibly collectivised agriculture. This led to rapid industrialisation but at a terrible human cost — famines, suppression of dissent, and a lack of consumer goods. India, while adopting a mixed economy with a strong public sector, retained private property, allowed private enterprise, and never forcibly collectivised land. The Indian approach was more gradual and less violent. …