CBSE Class 11 English The Adventure Worksheet Set 01

Introduction

‘The Adventure’, centres on certain unusual experiences that the historian Gangadharpant, the protagonist, had undergone. He finds himself in two worlds that were completely different from each other. It begins with the professor wondering about the fate of India if the Marathas had not allowed a concession to the East India Company to stay in Mumbai. He believes that this step and the failure of Maratha soldiers during the Battle of Panipat cost Indian history a great deal. But at the library he reads that Vishwasrao had a narrow escape in the battle against Abdali. In one space Vishwasrao and the Marathas have lost the Battle of Panipat and in the other they have won. Professor Gaitonde travels through time and experiences very different events and is in a state of shock. The discussion and attempted solution to this mystery has been discussed in this chapter.

THEME

The story deals with the explanation of time travel and is a perfect blend of history and science. In this unique story, the author has tried to concoct a new blend of history and physics with a detailed explanation of the theory of parallel worlds. The protagonist Professor Gaitonde travels through time and experiences very different events and is in a state of shock. He imagines the state of India where Britishers have never ruled and this lesson is a complete juxtaposition of facts and historical events.

Summary

This fictional narrative by Jayant Narlikar belongs to the genre of science fiction and deals with the much intriguing aspect of time. The protagonist of this story, Professor Gaitonde, a historian, is preparing for his thousandth presidential address in which he was to speak on the topic “What course history would have taken if the result of the Battle of Panipat had gone the other way?”. Professor Gaitonde was travelling from Pune to Bombay via the Jijamata Express, a train which was faster than the Deccan Queen. As he was crossing towns and villages, he met a man named ‘Khan Sahib’ who talked about his business and chatted about several things. They got off at Victoria Terminus station which was neat and clean. It had British officers, Parsees and Anglo-Indian staff all around. He was confused as to how the East India Company was ruling the country as according to his facts, they had fled away after the events of 1857.

He walked along Hornby Road and noticed that the shops were different. He entered the Forbes building and inquired about Mr Vinay Gaitonde but as checked by the receptionist, no such man had ever worked there. He went to the Town Hall and sat in the reading room. He took five books related to the history and decided to go through them one by one and check how the facts had changed. He started investigating from the period of Ashoka to the Battle of Panipat.

Most of the history was as he knew it in his world, but the point from where history had changed was the Battle of Panipat. In this different world, the Marathas had won. They had not allowed the East India Company to expand. In fact, its influence was limited to a few places like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. India had become a democracy but allowed the British to carry on for commercial reasons. Prof. Gaitonde wanted to find out how the Marathas had won the battle. While leaving the library as late as 8 p.m., he accidently puts the Bakhar into his pocket.

The next morning, he went for a stroll to Azad Maidan. There was a lecture in progress, and Prof. Gaitonde went and sat on the vacant presidential chair. It turned out that in this world, people were fed up of long speeches and had abolished the custom of presidential chair, introduction and vote of thanks. All they were interested in were the words of the speaker. Prof. Gaitonde began speaking much to the angst of the audience. The maidan became a scene of complete chaos. He only remembers that he was found lying in Azad Maidan. When Rajendra enquired what he was doing prior to the accident in which a truck had hit him, he said that he was thinking about the catastrophe theory, and its implications on history. Eventually he lands in a hospital room and talked to Rajendra Deshpande about what he had experienced in the last couple of days. But where had he been for the past two days remained a mystery. He showed Rajendra Deshpande the proof – the torn-off page of the Bakhar – for his claim that he had been somewhere else and was not just imagining things. After thorough discussions, Prof. Gaitonde and Rajendra Deshpande came to the conclusion that there could be many ‘different worlds at different points of time.’ They could all have a different history. Rajendra Deshpande, his scientist friend offers a scientific explanation of his strange experience. He says that professor Gaitonde was living in the present but was experiencing different worlds. They reach the conclusion that ‘the lack of determinism in quantum theory’ is what describes the experience that Prof. Gaitonde had. He gives the example of a bullet and an electron to explain the possibility of one person experiencing life at two different spaces in time.

About the Author

Jayant Narlikar, born on 19 July 1938 at Kolhapur in Maharashtra, is an Indian astrophysicist and emeritus professor at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics. He developed with Sir Fred Hoyle the conformal gravity theory, known as Hoyle–Narlikar theory. It synthesises Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and Mach’s principle.

Questions

Question. 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: 1. False, 2. True, 3. False, 4. False, 5. True

Question. 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.”
2. “You have passed through a fantastic experience: or more correctly, a catastrophic experience.”
3. Gangadharpant could not help comparing the country he knew with what he was witnessing around him.
4. “The lack of determinism in quantum theory!”
5. “You need some interaction to cause a transition.”
Answer: 1. This statement was said by Rajendra to Professor Gaitonde. As he made a transition from one world to another, he had a real-life experience for two days in an alternative reality. He neither travelled to the past nor the future. He was in the present all the time, experiencing two time zones, one which belonged to the past and the one in which he was currently living in.
2. This statement was said by Rajendra to Professor Gaitonde. When he was hit by the truck, he was thinking about the catastrophe theory and its implications on history. He did not have a clue as to where he had spent the last two days. He experienced an alternate world, having a real-life experience of many things which were not true in the real world he actually lives in. He could not get a grip of what had happened. He noticed that the facts about history were different, the turning point of which was the different results history had presented of the Battle of Panipat. That is why, Rajendra feels that Prof. Gaitonde had experienced the catastrophic effect.
3. Gangadharpant Gaitonde had witnessed different facts of history which were the decline of Marathas and British rule. In a different world, the reality was also different. The Marathas had won the Battle of Panipat and there was no slavery under the white man. India was free and the people had self-respect. When he compared the two different facts of the same country, he liked this different version of India more.
4. The lack of determinism in quantum theory states that: If a bullet is fired from a gun in a given direction at a given speed, one will know where it will be later, but such an assertion cannot be made for an electron. When an electron is emitted from a source, it may be anywhere. This is the lack of determinism in quantum theory. This theory asserts that reality is never one-sided. Alternative worlds may exist at the same time.
5. Professor Gaitonde understands that he had made a transition from one world to another and back again. But he wanted to know what caused the transition to happen. Rajendra confessed that this could be one of the unsolved questions in science, but offered to make a guess. He said, “You need some interaction to cause a transition. Perhaps, at the time of the collision, you were thinking about the catastrophe theory and its role in wars. Maybe you were wondering about the Battle of Panipat. Perhaps, the neurons in your brain acted as a trigger.” Gaitonde appreciated the assumption made by Rajendra and said that he was indeed wondering what course of history would have taken if the result of the battle had gone the other way.

TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT

Question. 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: For: A single event may change the course of the history of a nation. In the case of the Battle of Panipat, had it been won by the Marathas, the course of India’s history would have been different compared to the one we live in now. The British rule would have ended and India would have become a democratic nation. People would have been leading respectful and decent lives instead of being servile to the British.
Against: It is a matter of perspective that a single event may change the course of the history of a nation. The experience that Prof. Gaitonde went through, made him perceive two different patterns of the same nation, one that was in the present and the other that was a period in history in a book written by him. The Bakhar had a different report about the battle. The central point of the crisis was the result of the Battle of Panipat. The event seemed to have caused a confusion rather than a change in the course of history. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively claimed that a single event may change the course of history.

Question. (ii) Reality is what is directly experienced through the senses.
Answer: For: Our senses, that is, the senses of touch, sight, taste, hearing and smell provide us with the information about the realities that abound in the world that we live in. If any of they senses fail, it would be difficult for the person to experience the multitude of realities that are around him. Knowledge is acquired from experiences that come through these senses. We would not be able to enjoy the fragrance of flowers or enjoy the sweet music of nature, if our senses were not sensitive. The reality is revealed to us because of our sense organs.
Against: Reality is not necessarily what is directly revealed to us by our senses. The explanation given by Rajendra in the lesson, ascertains the fact that it is not only “seeing that is believing.” We cannot experience so many entities like atoms and molecules but they are real. We cannot even predict the behaviour of these entities accurately. He explains how the electron orbits the nucleus of an atom and these could be in various states of energy. All these are happening simultaneously, and being in a particular reality, we are not able to know anything about it. We can predict the position of a bullet fired in a particular direction from a gun but we cannot predict the position of an electron fired from a source. This proves that reality is not what is directly revealed to the senses. There can be alternative realities existing side by side.

Question. (iii) The methods of inquiry of history, science and philosophy are similar.
Answer: For: The methods of inquiry of History, Science and Philosophy are similar. In the story, ‘The Adventure’, one can find the attributes of History, Philosophy and Science converging towards a focal point. History employs the methods of observation, analysis and rationalism to understand the details of events that had transpired in the past. The study of Science is based on the principle of ‘Rationalism’ and involves observation, experimentation and analysis. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Philosophy examines everything including the assumptions and methodology of science and other disciplines like History. In the story, ‘The Adventure’, History, Science and Philosophy intersect. Prof. Gaitonde tried to understand his experience rationally but he failed to get an answer. Rajendra intervened to explain this phenomenon in the light of the catastrophe theory which is being employed by Physicists in understanding the behaviour of atoms. Here we find Science and History integrating. A similar perspective is seen in Philosophy, which is that truth is relative and not absolute. In other words, the methods of inquiry of History, Science and Philosophy are similar.
Against: It is absurd to state that the methods of inquiry adopted in History, Science and Philosophy are similar. The similarity, if there is any, is on a superficial level and not at the core. In the story ‘The Adventure’, Rajendra tries to rationalise the experience of Prof. Gaitonde by applying the catastrophe theory. But this explanation is not convincing though it seemed to have answered the queries of the professor. Catastrophe theory explains the existence and functions of the physical world, whereas History deals with the behavioural world. It tells us about the causes, events and results of actions undertaken by a person or a group of people. The methods of inquiry will also be centred around human behaviour. Philosophy is the study of ideas and issues, a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for a comprehensive understanding of the world. In other words, the methods of History, Science and Philosophy are not similar. The three disciplines, namely, Science, History and Philosophy have to employ different methodologies of inquiry in keeping with the subject matter involved.

Question. (i) The story is called ‘The Adventure’. Compare it with the adventure described in ‘We’re Not Afraid to Die...’
(ii) Why do you think Professor Gaitonde decided never to preside over meetings again?
Answer: (i) ‘We’re Not Afraid to Die…’ is a story about a family who went on a seafaring trip with their two children and two crewmen. The challenge was to stay alive and reach the shore safely when they were hit by a storm and their boat nearly capsized. Their experience was real and painful. On the other hand, Professor Gaitonde’s experience may be classified as an imaginary one, in which he had travelled into another time zone, wherein he experienced a different era in Indian history. This happened because of the thought processes that were going on in his mind prior to an accident that had him in a coma. It was during this period of comatose that he slipped into a different period in history. The two experiences are totally different from each other.
(ii) When in a different world, the professor noticed the empty presidential chair on the stage in an ongoing lecture at the Azad Maidan, he tried to sit on it as it is unethical to have the presidential chair unoccupied. An enraged crowd and the speaker asked the professor to move out. He was unperturbed, and continued to make them realise their folly. The audience was not ready to listen to him. They threw many objects at him and asked him to move aside. They physically lifted him off the stage. This experience prompted the professor to say that he’d never preside over meetings again.

THINKING ABOUT LANGUAGE

Question. 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 communicated in Marathi, and they used a translator to communicate with the English-speaking receptionist.

Question. In which language do you think Bhausahebanchi Bakhar was written?
Answer: Bhausahebanchi Bakhar was written in Maratha language.

Question. 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: When they spoke to each other, they used their traditional slang, but when they spoke to other groups, they used the language that is understood by people from all three communities.

Question. Do you think that the ruled always adopt the language of the ruler?
Answer: Answer may vary

WORKING WITH WORDS

Question. Tick the item that is closest in meaning to the following phrases.
1. to take issue with
(i) to accept
(ii) to discuss
(iii) to disagree
(iv) to add
Answer: (iii) to disagree

Question. 2. to give vent to
(i) to express
(ii) to emphasis
(iii) suppress
(iv) dismiss
Answer: (i) to express

Question. 3. to stand on one’s feet
(i) to be physically strong
(ii) to be independent
(iii) to stand erect
(iv) to be successful
Answer: (ii) to be independent

Question. 4. to be wound up
(i) to become active
(ii) to stop operating
(iii) to be transformed
(iv) to be destroyed
Answer: (ii) to stop operating

Question. 5. to meet one’s match
(i) to meet a partner who has similar tastes
(ii) to meet an opponent
(iii) to meet someone who is equally able as oneself
(iv) to meet defeat
Answer: (iii) to meet someone who is equally able as oneself

Question. Distinguish between the following pairs of sentences.
1. (i) He was visibly moved.
(ii) He was visually impaired.
2. (i) Green and black stripes were used alternately.
(ii) Green stripes could be used or alternatively black ones.
3. (i) The team played the two matches successfully.
(ii) The team played two matches successively.
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: 1. (i) clearly (ii) defective eyesight
2. (i) one after the other (ii) in place of
3. (i) with success (ii) one after the other
4. (i) dignity (ii) same order

Additional Questions

Extract-based Questions

Read the following extracts carefully and answer the questions that follow. 

Meanwhile, the racing mind of Professor Gaitonde had arrived at a plan of action in Bombay. Indeed, as a historian he felt he should have thought of it sooner. He would go to a big library and browse through history books. That was the surest way of finding out how the present state of affairs was reached. He also planned eventually to return to Pune and have a long talk with Rajendra Deshpande, who would surely help him understand what had happened.

Question. What was Professor Gaitonde’s plan of action in Bombay?
Answer: He planned to go to a big library and consult the history books there to find out how history had changed.

Question. Who was Rajendra Deshpande?
Answer: Rajendra Deshpande was a professor of physics at Mumbai University.

Question. Where was Professor Gaitonde travelling to?
(i) From Pune to Bombay
(ii) From Pune to Delhi
(iii) From Bombay to Pune
(iv) No where
Answer: (i) From Pune to Bombay

Prepared as he was for many shocks, Professor Gaitonde had not expected this. The East India Company had been wound up shortly after the events of 1857 — at least, that is what history books said. Yet, here it was, not only alive but flourishing. So, history had taken a different turn, perhaps before 1857. How and when had it happened? He had to find out.

Question. What had Professor Gaitonde not expected in Bombay?
Answer: Professor Gaitonde did not expect to see the domination of East India Company in Bombay. According to the history books, the company had been wound up after 1857.

Question. Why was Professor Gaitonde surprised to see the name of East India Company?
Answer: As the professor came out of the station, he saw the headquarters of East India Company which left him in utter shock because the company existed in the 18th and 19th century but was wound up after the revolt of 1857.

Question. Where was Professor Gaitonde in the given extract?
(i) Indore
(ii) Victoria Terminus
(iii) Pune
(iv) Kalyan
Answer: (ii) Victoria Terminus

She searched through the telephone list, the staff list and then through the directory of employees of all the branches of the firm. She shook her head and said, “I am afraid I can’t find anyone of that name either here or in any of our branches. Are you sure he works here?” This was a blow, not totally unexpected. If he himself were dead in this world, what guarantee had he that his son would be alive? Indeed, he may not even have been born!

Question. Who is referred to as ‘she’ in the given extract? What was she searching?
Answer: ‘She’ refers to the English receptionist. She was searching the details of Gaitonde’s son.

Question. What shocked Gaitonde the most?
Answer: The fact that there was no trace of his son shocked Gaitonde the most because he was not born at that time.

Question. In which of the following sentences has the word ‘branches’ been used in the same context as in the extract?
(i) Sophie was on the branches of a tree eating an apple.
(ii) Under its branches men and aimals found pleasant shade.
(iii) Soft, pale shadows of waving branches moved back and forth, like the ghosts of dreams.
(iv) The store has branches in all major towns.
Answer: (iv) The store has branches in all major towns.

Gangadharpant pressed home his advantage. “I had inadvertently slipped the Bakhar in my pocket as I left the library. I discovered my error when I was paying for my meal. I had intended to return it the next morning. But it seems that in the melee of Azad Maidan, the book was lost; only this torn-off page remained. And, luckily for me, the page contains vital evidence.”

Question. What does ‘pressed home his advantage’ mean?
Answer: It means that he used an advantage that he already had in order to succeed in what he wanted to do.

Question. What did the professor slip into his pocket before leaving the library?
(i) Bakhar
(ii) English literature
(iii) Newspaper
(iv) Money
Answer: (i) Bakhar

Question. What was Gangadharpant’s vital piece of evidence?
Answer: Gangadharpant had inadvertently slipped the Bakhar into his pocket when he left the library. He was left with only a torn-off page of the book which contained the vital evidence that described how Vishwasrao narrowly missed the bullet.

“Professor Gaitonde, you have given me food for thought. Until I saw this material evidence, I had simply put your experience down to fantasy. But facts can be stranger than fantasies, as I am beginning to realise.”

Question. Who is speaking the given lines?
Answer: Rajendra Deshpande is speaking the given lines.

Question. Which experience was mistaken for a fantasy?
Answer: The experience of the professor being in another time zone was mistaken for a fantasy.

Question. What ‘fact’ is the speaker talking about?
(i) The information in the Bakhar
(ii) The fact that the professor was fantasising
(iii) The fact that the war never took place
(iv) The fact that the professor met with an accident
Answer: (i) The information in the Bakhar

“You have heard a lot about the catastrophe theory at that seminar. Let us apply it to the Battle of Panipat. Wars fought face to face on open grounds offer excellent examples of this theory. The Maratha army was facing Abdali’s troops on the field of Panipat. There was no great disparity between the latter’s troops and the opposing forces. Their armour was comparable. So, a lot depended on the leadership and the morale of the troops. The juncture at which Vishwasrao, the son of and heir to the Peshwa, was killed proved to be the turning point.

Question. Who is speaking to whom in the given extract? What are they discussing about?
Answer: Rajendra Deshpande is speaking to Professor Gaitonde. They are discussing about how the theory of catastrophe might have changed the fate of the battle.

Question. What do you understand by the term ‘catastrophe theory’?
Answer: Catastrophe theory can be explained as a small change in circumstance that can bring alternation in the manner or behaviour of something.

Question. What happened to the Maratha army in reality?
(i) They lost the battle.
(ii) They won the battle.
(iii) They signed a treaty after the battle.
(iv) Nothing happened.
Answer: (i) They lost the battle.