1st PUC ENGLISH NOTES - THE GENTLEMEN OF THE JUNGLE - 2 MARKS / 3 MARKS / 4 MARKS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1st PUC ENGLISH NOTES - THE GENTLEMEN OF THE JUNGLE - 2 MARKS / 3 MARKS / 4 MARKS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Answer the following questions ( 2 marks)
- What favour did the elephant ask the man?
The elephant asked if it could place its trunk inside the hut to protect it from heavy rain.
- Did the elephant keep its promise to the man?
No, the elephant broke the promise and threw the man out after putting its trunk inside.
- Who decided to appoint a Commission of Enquiry?
The lion, king of the jungle, decided to appoint the Commission to solve the dispute.
- Why was the man unhappy with the commission?
The commission had no members from his side, so it was unfair and biased.
- What did the elephant say in his defense?
The elephant claimed the man had invited him to protect the hut from the storm.
- Whose side did the commission support?
The Commission supported the elephant’s side and ruled in his favour.
- What happened when the man built a new hut?
Other animals came and occupied it, just like the elephant had done earlier.
- Why did the man burn the hut?
He wanted to take revenge and end the injustice done to him by all animals.
- What does the story symbolise?
The story is a satire on colonialism, where powerful colonizers exploit the weak.
- What is the moral of the story?
If injustice continues, even the weak may revolt and fight back powerfully.
11. What favour did the elephant ask the man on a
rainy day?
Ans:
The elephant inquired as to whether the man would let the elephant put
his trunk inside the hut, so as to protect the trunk from the heavy downpour.
12. According to the
man, his hut had room only for him. True /False
Ans: False.
13. How did the elephant sneak into the man’s hut?
Ans: The elephant sneaked
into the man’s hut when the elephant succeeded to put the trunk inside the
man’s hut, the elephant gradually pushed his head inside lastly tossed the man
out of the hut, in the downpour.
14. According to the elephant, the man can afford
to remain in the rain because
(a) the skin of the man is harder than his.
(b) the skin of the elephant is delicate.
(c) the skin of the elephant is harder than that of man.
Ans: (b) the skin of the elephant is
delicate.
15. How did the lion decide to solve the problem?
Ans: The lion chose to select an Imperial
Commission/Commission of Enquiry for an enquiry to take care of the issue of
the man.
16. What kind of judgement did the man expect?
Ans: The man believed that his hut would be
returned back to him and that equity would be finished.
17. Why was the man
unhappy with the members of the Commission of Enquiry?
Ans: The man was unhappy with the members of
the Commission of Enquiry because that there was no one from his side.
18. According to the elephant, the man had invited
him into the hut
(a) to save his skin. (b)
to give shelter to his trunk.
(c) to save the hut from the hurricane. (d)
to fill the empty space in the hut.
Ans: (c) to save the hut from the hurricane.
19. In whose favour was the judgement given?
Ans:
The judgement was given in favour of the elephant.
20. Why did the man
accept the suggestion of building a new hut?
Ans: The man accepted the suggestion of
building a new hut because the man had no option as he was anxious about the
possibility that that his refusal to built another hut on another site would open
him to the teeth and claws of members of the Commission.
21. How did the man
‘buy’ peace finally?
Ans: The man bought peace finally when he
constructed a huge hut that all the animals would stay in it and when all of
them got inside the hut and begun battling themselves, while they were all
involved together the man set the hut on fire and burnt it to the ground,
jungle lords and all.
Answer the following questions 3 Marks Questions
- How did the elephant take
control of the man’s hut?
Ans: During heavy rain, the elephant
asked the man if it could put its trunk inside the hut for shelter. The
kind-hearted man allowed it. But soon, the elephant pushed further and entered
the hut completely. It then threw the man out into the rain. The man had built
the hut with his own hands, but now he stood in the rain while the elephant
enjoyed the comfort. This act showed how the elephant took advantage of the
man’s kindness and claimed the hut for himself without any gratitude or
respect.
- Why was the man disappointed
with the commission of enquiry?
Ans: The man believed the Commission
would give him justice and return his hut. But when he saw the members, he was
shocked. All were animals and none represented him or his side. They were
friends of the elephant and biased. The man realised that he would never get
justice from such a one-sided commission. Instead of listening to his problem,
they supported the elephant’s lies. This made the man lose faith in the system,
and he felt helpless and cheated by those who promised peace and fairness.
- What was the judgment of the
Commission of Enquiry?
Ans: The Commission of Enquiry ruled
in favour of the elephant. They claimed that the man had invited the elephant
to protect the hut from the storm. They said the elephant had done a better job
using the space in the hut. So, they declared that the hut rightfully belonged
to the elephant. The man was shocked, as he was the original owner and builder
of the hut. He expected justice but received betrayal. This judgment was
clearly unjust and showed how the powerful animals supported one another.
- Why did the man build another
hut?
Ans: After the Commission’s unfair
judgment, the man was told to build another hut. He agreed because he was
afraid of the powerful animals. He feared that if he refused, the animals might
harm him. He had no other option. Every time he built a new hut, one or another
animal came to occupy it. He was thrown out again and again. This showed how
the weak were being oppressed by the powerful in the name of peace and order.
- How does the story reflect
colonialism?
Ans: The story is a strong example
of colonialism. The man represents native people, and the animals represent
colonizers. Just like colonizers entered lands by asking for small favours, the
animals also took over the man’s hut. Then, they made unfair laws and decisions
through biased commissions. They acted as if they were helping, but their real
aim was to take control. The natives lost their land and rights. The story
shows how colonizers misused power and pretended to be fair while actually
being selfish and unjust.
- Why did the man burn the hut
with the animals inside?
Ans: The man was tired of being
treated unfairly. Every time he built a hut, an animal took it. He tried to
seek justice, but the jungle law was always against him. One day, he got an
idea. He built a big hut and waited. As expected, all the animals entered and
started fighting inside. When they were busy fighting, the man set the hut on
fire and burnt them all. This was his final step to get peace and justice. It
shows that even a peaceful man can take strong action if pushed too far.
- What kind of justice was
promised to the man?
Ans: The lion promised peace and
justice through a fair enquiry. He said a Commission would solve the problem.
The man believed the words and trusted the jungle’s promise. But the reality
was different. The Commission was filled with animals who supported the
elephant. They did not care about the man or his side of the story. In the end,
the elephant was given the hut and the man got nothing. The justice promised
was never delivered.
- Explain the meaning of “Peace
is costly but worth the expense” in the story.
Ans: This quote means that
sometimes, one has to pay a big price to get peace. In the story, the man had
to lose many huts and face injustice again and again. At last, to get peace, he
had to take a big step—burning the hut and the animals inside. That was the
only way he could live peacefully. Though the action was extreme, it brought
him justice. The quote shows that peace often requires great sacrifices,
especially when you are dealing with oppressors.
- Do you think the animals'
actions were fair? Why or why not?
Ans:: No, the animals' actions were not
fair. They misused their power. The elephant first cheated the man and took
over his hut. Then, other animals like the rhinoceros, buffalo, and leopard did
the same. They showed no respect for the man’s hard work or rights. Even the
Commission of Enquiry was made unfairly, with no one from the man’s side. The
animals acted selfishly and never cared about justice. Their actions showed
greed, dishonesty, and bullying.
- What moral do we learn from the
story?
Ans: The story teaches us that if
injustice continues, even the kind and weak can rise and fight back. It shows
that the powerful should not misuse their position, or they may face strong
resistance. It also warns us not to mistake kindness for weakness. The man
tolerated injustice many times, but finally, he took revenge. The story reminds
us that everyone has limits, and when those limits are crossed, the results can
be dangerous.
11.
Why was the Commission of Enquiry appointed by the king
of the jungle?
Ans:
The Commission of Enquiry appointed by the king of the jungle because
the king of the jungle guaranteed that he needed “peace and tranquility” in his
kingdom. With his sweet words, he convinced the man that justice would be
distributed to him through the discoveries of the Commission. Subsequently, the
Commission of Enquiry was named by the king of the jungle under the appearance
of doing justice to the man.
12. Why did the animals
decide not to have anyone from the man’s side on the Commission of Enquiry?
Ans: The animals decided not to have anybody
from the man's side on the Commission of Enquiry because on the contention that
there was nobody educated enough from the man's side to know the difficulty of
the jungle law. In spite of, the implicit truth is the way that directly from
the earliest starting point, the Commission had no goal of doing any justice to
the man and then had agents just from the elephant's side.
13.
How did the elephant justify its act of occupying the
hut?
Ans: The elephant had positively no anxiety
while supporting its regional control of the man's hut. It dismissed before the
Commission that the man had requested that the elephant spare his hut from the
hurricane and as the storm had accessed the unoccupied space in the hut, the
elephant had put the vacant, lacking space to a more economical use by
involving it.
14.
Do you think the verdict of the Commission of Enquiry was
on expected lines? Why?
Ans: Yes, the judgment of the Commission of
Enquiry was on expected lines. The judgment was supportive of the elephant
since all the members of the Commission were agents from the elephant's side.
Besides, none of the jungle delegates thought about justice. They were all
narrow minded and tricky persons, similarly as the jungle ruler lion himself
seemed to be.
15.
What fate awaited the man each time he built a new house?
Ans: Each time the man constructed another house, it was powerfully involved by either creature of the jungle kingdom. The man was tossed out of his own home. The man's state was truly pathetic in light of the fact that each time he was guaranteed justice, yet each time he was denied justice.
Answer the following questions 4 Marks Questions
- Describe the story as a political
satire.
Ans: “The Gentlemen of the Jungle”
is a powerful political satire on colonialism. In the story, animals represent
European colonizers, and the man represents the native Africans. The elephant
first asks to place its trunk inside the man’s hut, similar to how colonizers
entered countries under the pretense of trade, religion, or protection. But
then the elephant takes over the whole hut, throws the man out, and refuses to
leave—just like how colonizers took over lands. The Commission of Enquiry,
filled with animals, mirrors the colonizers’ legal systems that always favoured
their own interests. The man’s voice is ignored, and justice is denied
repeatedly. When all animals occupy the man’s huts, he finally takes revenge by
burning the hut with them inside. This ending shows that patience has limits,
and even the weak will fight back when oppressed for too long. The story
cleverly mocks the so-called "civilized" behavior of colonizers,
showing their hypocrisy. It highlights how power can corrupt and how justice
was often just a word used to fool the weak. Jomo Kenyatta uses animals to
represent human nature and colonial politics, delivering a powerful moral
lesson through fable and symbolism.
2.
How did the elephant cheat the man and occupy his hut?
Ans: Once upon a time, an elephant made friendship with a man, who had a little hut at the edge of the forest. One day a heavy thunderstorm broke out and the elephant felt like taking shelter in a hut. The elephant went to the man’s hut and requested him to let him put its trunk inside the hut so as to shelter ¡t from the torrential rain. The man took pity on the elephant and told the elephant to gently put only its trunk inside the hut. But, the elephant, soon after putting its trunk inside the hut, slowly pushed its head also inside, flung the man out in the rain and then lay down comfortably inside his hut.
3.
How did the elephant justify his act of occupying the hut
in ‘The Gentlemen of the Jungle’?
Ans: The elephant went to the man when it was
in difficulty and asked him to give a place to keep its trunk to protect it
from rain. The man showed sympathy and gave permission to keep its trunk only
as there was enough place only for its trunk and himself. But the elephant
slowly sneaked in and occupied the whole hut and threw him out, by saying that
it would protect his hut from the hurricane. The elephant had absolutely no
qualms while justifying its territorial occupation of the man’s hut. It deposed
before the Commission that the man had asked the elephant to save his hut from
the hurricane and as the hurricane had gained access to the hut owing to the
unoccupied space in the hut, the elephant had put the empty, undeveloped space
to a more economic use by occupying it.
4.
Why did the man finally set the newly built bigger hut on
fire, in ‘The Gentlemen of the Jungle’?
Ans: The man was exploited by all the animals
of the commission and each time he built new huts. Mr. Rhinoceros. Mr. Buffalo,
Mr. Leopard, Mr. Hyena and others occupied the hut. So he was very much
initiated with the animals’ behaviour and he lost faith injustice. He waited
for an opportunity to take revenge against the animals. Accordingly, when he
built a new hut sooner Mr. Rhinoceros came to occupy it, but the elephant had
already occupied the hut. Other animals also came to occupy the hut and they
all quarreled amongst themselves. And while they were fighting, the man used
this opportunity to get revenge and peace. He set the hut on fire and killed
all the animals of the jungle. This action of the man was just an apt to the
situation and circumstances. The annual’ imperial policy reminds us of the
colonial policy of whites over blacks. The man is symbolic of the black people
and revolted against the dominance of the brutal whites. So his action is
justified with this apt quote “Peace is costly but it is worth the expense”.
5.
Describe the circumstances that led to the appointment of
the Commission of Enquiry.
Ans: One day the elephant wanted protection
from torrential rain. So he requested the man to allow him to push its trunk in
the man’s hut. Then he agreed. The elephant pushed his trunk inside, and slowly
pushed itself into the man’s hut and flung him out. The man started grumbling.
Hearing the noise the animals stood around listening to the heated argument
between the man and the elephant. The lion, the king of the forest wanted peace
and tranquility in his kingdom. So he ordered the elephant to appoint a
Commission of Enquiry to look into the matter and report accordingly.
6.
Do you agree with the action of the man at the end? Why?
Ans: Yes, I agree with the action of the man
at the end. The man's activity can be perceived as defended requital on
revenge, justice, discipline. We should recall the way that subsequent to
having attempted over and over for justice in a quiet way and simply in the
wake of being violated more than once does the man go to the extraordinary
degree of torching the hut alongside all the creatures inside. Indeed, even
here, reality remains that if the creatures hadn't illegally involved the hut
which was not worked by them, the sad destiny wouldn't have fallen on them. In
this way, in whichever point we take, the man's activity can be perceived and
supported. We ought to recollect that stable offense is as terrible as
submitting it.
7.
‘An act of kindness is misunderstood as weakness.’ Discuss
this with reference to the story.
Ans: The man's thoughtful gesture of letting
the elephant put his trunk inside the hut so as to protect the unoccupied space
from the heavy rain is exploited by the elephant. The elephant doesn't have the
simplicity to understand a thoughtful gesture and accepts it as an indication
of shortcoming. In its selfishness, it does extraordinary shamefulness to a
friend who meets people's high expectations in the true soul of a friend out of
luck. Further, the elephant takes plan of action to the argument that different
creatures in his position would have done also.
8.
‘Peace is costly but it is worth the expense.’ What is
the ironical significance of this statement?
Ans: ‘Peace is costly but it is worth the
expense’ are by the way utilized on the grounds that the man needed to lose his
huts more than once before he at last defeated his enemy with a ploy (plot,
stunt). Usually, we don't talk regarding money when we discuss peace. However,
on account of the man, peace gets connected to his property. Regarding
colonization too peace gets connected to riches in light of the fact that the
locals are occupied for their riches by the colonizers. In spite of, the
inclination for opportunity stays alive in the hearts of the occupied and all
the penances put forth will be viewed as worthy of the attempt.
9.
Every fable ends with a moral. What ‘moral’ do you find
in this story?
Ans: Of course every fable ends with a moral, similarly the moral of this story lies in the notice given to the amazing creatures. It is unmistakably observed that the easygoing can defeat the powerful if the tame are pushed against the divider. In the event that the powerful believe that they can proceed with unabated in their bad behavior, they will be disproving by the easygoing.
10.
Do you think the story can be read as a political satire
on colonialism?
Ans: Yes, the story can be read as a
political satire on colonialism. Unmistakably the story is a purposeful tale
with a good. The universe of creatures is set in opposition to the man to
recommend that among people, some resemble creatures in their savagery. It is
unquestionably a political satire which shows the dishonest and narrow minded
methods of the colonizers in their relationship with the locals. The story put
down at the arrogant mentalities of the colonizers who feel that it is their
duty to change the resident. They approve all their narrow minded acts by
hiding their childish deeds with the conflict that they have been sent by God
himself for the great deed. The creator utilizes terms like 'better economical
use' to recommend the exchange and trade the colonizers built up in the
colonized nation.
No comments
Please do not enter any spam link in comment box