Understanding the text

I. Tick the statements that are true.

1. The story is an account of real events.
2. The story hinges on a particular historical event.
3. Rajendra Deshpande was a historian.
4. The places mentioned in the story are all imaginary.
5. The story tries to relate history to science.

Answer:
2. The story hinges on a particular historical event. (True)
5. The story tries to relate history to science. (True)

II. Briefly explain the following statements from the text.

1. “You neither travelled to the past nor the future. You were in the present experiencing a different world.”
Answer: This means that Professor Gaitonde didn’t travel through time. He was still in the present, but he had moved from one version of reality to another, one that had a different history from his own.

2. “You have passed through a fantastic experience: or more correctly, a catastrophic experience.”
Answer: It was a “fantastic” experience in the sense that it was beyond belief, like a fantasy. But it was a “catastrophic” experience because it was a sudden, violent event (the collision) that caused a radical shift or bifurcation in reality, according to catastrophe theory.

3. Gangadharpant could not help comparing the country he knew with what he was witnessing around him.
Answer: He was constantly comparing the India he knew, which was a former British colony, with the India he was seeing in the new reality, which was a free and self-respecting nation. The two worlds were so different that he couldn’t help but notice all the contrasts.

4. “The lack of determinism in quantum theory!”
Answer: This statement refers to the idea that in quantum physics, you can’t predict for sure what an electron will do. This unpredictability, or “lack of determinism,” is what Rajendra uses to explain how there could be many different realities existing at the same time.

5. “You need some interaction to cause a transition.”
Answer: This means that to move from one reality to another, something has to trigger the change. Rajendra thinks the interaction was the collision with the truck, combined with Professor Gaitonde’s thoughts about catastrophe theory.

Talking about the text

1. Discuss the following statements in groups of two pairs, each pair in a group taking opposite points of view.

(i) A single event may change the course of the history of a nation.
Answer: This is a classic “what if” question in history. One side might argue that a single event can indeed have huge consequences, like the bullet that missed Vishwasrao in the story. Another side might argue that larger, more powerful forces are what truly shape history, and a single event is just a symptom of those larger forces.

(ii) Reality is what is directly experienced through the senses.
Answer: One side would agree, saying that if you can’t see, hear, or touch it, it isn’t real. The other side might argue that this is a limited view. They would say that reality can also be non-physical, like a thought or an idea, and that what we experience through our senses might not be the whole picture.

(iii) The methods of inquiry of history, science and philosophy are similar.
Answer: On one hand, all three disciplines use logic, analysis, and reason to understand the world. They all start with a question and try to find evidence. On the other hand, their methods are very different. History relies on documents and records, science relies on experiments and data, and philosophy relies on logic and reasoning.

2. (i) The story is called ‘The Adventure’. Compare it with the adventure described in ‘We’re Not Afraid to Die…’
Answer: The adventure in “We’re Not Afraid to Die…” is a physical one, a thrilling and dangerous voyage on the sea. The adventure in this story is a mental one, a journey through a different reality and a search for understanding. Both are about facing the unknown and showing courage, but one is a fight against nature, while the other is a fight to understand an intellectual puzzle.

(ii) Why do you think Professor Gaitonde decided never to preside over meetings again?
Answer: He decided never to preside again because he realized the version of Professor Gaitonde who was in the other world was the “real” one, the one who fought for what he believed in. He felt that the person who went back to this reality had lost that fighting spirit, and he couldn’t just go back to his normal life after such a profound experience.

Thinking about language

1. In which language do you think Gangadharpant and Khan Sahib talked to each other? Which language did Gangadharpant use to talk to the English receptionist?
Answer: Gangadharpant and Khan Sahib were likely talking in Hindi or a similar local language, as it was a common way for people from different communities to communicate. He would have used English to talk to the English receptionist.

2. In which language do you think Bhausahebanchi Bakhar was written?
Answer: The Bakhars were historical chronicles, and Bhausahebanchi Bakhar would have been written in Marathi.

3. There is mention of three communities in the story: the Marathas, the Mughals, the Anglo-Indians. Which language do you think they used within their communities and while speaking to the other groups?
Answer: The Marathas would have used Marathi, the Mughals would have used Persian or Urdu, and the Anglo-Indians would have used English. When speaking to each other, they would have likely used a common language like Hindi or English, depending on the context.

4. Do you think that the ruled always adopt the language of the ruler?
Answer: Not always! While the language of the ruler often becomes important for administration and social mobility, the ruled continue to use their own languages for daily life, culture, and communication within their communities. It’s more of a parallel language adoption.

Working with words

I. Tick the item that is closest in meaning to the following phrases.

1. to take issue with
   (iii) to disagree
2. to give vent to
   (i) to express
3. to stand on one’s feet
   (ii) to be independent
4. to be wound up
   (ii) to stop operating
5. to meet one’s match
   (iii) to meet someone who is equally able as oneself

II. Distinguish between the following pairs of sentences.

1. (i) He was visibly moved.
(ii) He was visually impaired.
Answer:
(i) “Visibly moved” means that his emotions were obvious to see on his face.
(ii) “Visually impaired” means he had problems with his sight or was blind.

2. (i) Green and black stripes were used alternately.
(ii) Green stripes could be used or alternatively black ones.
Answer:
(i) “Alternately” means one after the other, like green, then black, then green.
(ii) “Alternatively” means as a choice, either green or black.

3. (i) The team played the two matches successfully.
(ii) The team played two matches successively.
Answer:
(i) “Successfully” means they won the matches.
(ii) “Successively” means they played the matches one right after the other.

4. (i) The librarian spoke respectfully to the learned scholar.
(ii) You will find the historian and the scientist in the archaeology and natural science sections of the museum respectively.
Answer:
(i) “Respectfully” means he spoke in a polite way, showing respect.
(ii) “Respectively” means in the order given, so the historian is in the archaeology section and the scientist is in the natural science section.

Noticing form

The story deals with unreal and hypothetical conditions. Some of the sentences used to express this notion are given below:

1. If I fire a bullet from a gun in a given direction at a given speed, I know where it will be at a later time.
2. If I knew the answer I would solve a great problem.
3. If he himself were dead in this world, what guarantee had he that his son would be alive.
4. What course would history have taken if the battle had gone the other way?

Answer:
These sentences show a hypothetical or unreal condition. In sentence 1, the condition is a scientific reality. In sentences 2 and 3, the condition is an unfulfilled or impossible wish. Sentence 4 is an inquiry into a different timeline. The use of “if” and the conditional verb forms (“would,” “were”) show that these are not based on the actual reality of the story.