The Adventure

Jayant Narlikar
Understanding the text
I. Tick the statements that are true.
1. The story is an account of real events.
Answer:
False
2. The story hinges on a particular historical event.
Answer:
True
3. Rajendra Deshpande was a historian.
Answer:
False
4. The places mentioned in the story are all imaginary.
Answer:
False
5. The story tries to relate history to science.
Answer:
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:
“You did not travel to the past or the future. You were in the present, but you were in a
different world.” These words were spoken by Rajendra Deshpande while attempting to
explain his strange experience to Professor Gaitonde. When the professor was involved in an
accident, he began to reflect on the Battle of Panipat and the consequences that occurred in
his life. His thoughts wandered between what we know about history and what might have
been. The professor was experiencing two worlds at the same time by thinking. According to
the same theory, there must be many more different worlds emerging from unrealistic
thoughts.
2. “You have passed through a fantastic experience: or more correctly, a catastrophic
experience.”
Answer:
“You’ve had a fantastic experience, or, more accurately, a catastrophic experience.”
Professor Gaitonde was told by Rajendra Deshpande that he had an exciting experience. He
claimed that we lived in a one-of-a-kind world with a one-of-a-kind history. Gangadhar
Pant’s mind jumped to another world as a result of the accident, which was unrealistic.
History took a different turn in that world after the Marathas won the Battle of Panipat.
Rajendra explained this using the catastrophic theory, which holds that reality is full of
misinterpretations.
3. Gangadharpant could not help comparing the country he knew with what he was
witnessing around him.
Answer:
“Gangadhar Pant couldn’t help but compare his home country to what he was seeing around
him.” Gangadhar Pant witnessed two different perspectives on the same reality, albeit one at
a time, during his extraordinary experience. The India he knew was described in history
books as the result of the 1761 Battle of Panipat, in which the Marathas were defeated. The
other India he saw was the result of the Marathas’ victory in the battle. In this version, he saw
India as a prosperous country that can meet its own needs.
4. “The lack of determinism in quantum theory!”
Answer:
Quantum theory’s lack of determinism. If a bullet is fired from a gun in a specific direction at
a specific speed, one can predict where it will end up, but the same cannot be said for an
electron. When an electron is emitted by a source, it can come from anywhere. This is due to
quantum theory’s lack of determinism. According to this theory, reality is never one-sided. At
the same time, alternate worlds may exist.
5. “You need some interaction to cause a transition.”
Answer:
To cause a transition, some interaction is required. According to Rajendra Deshpande,
Professor Gaintonde made a change as a result of the interaction that occurred in the
professor’s mind at the time of the collision. The professor was thinking about catastrophic
theory and its role in wars at the time of the collision. He was thinking about the Battle of
Panipat and its aftermath. The transition was caused by the interaction in his brain.
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 communicated in Marathi, and they used a translator to
communicate with the English-speaking receptionist.
2. In which language do you think Bhausahebanchi Bakhar was written?
Answer:
Bhausahebanchi Bakhar was written in Maratha language.
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:
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.
4. Do you think that the ruled always adopt the language of the ruler?
Answer:
Write your answer.
Working with words
I. 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
2. to give vent to
(i) to express
(ii) to emphasise
(iii) suppress
(iv) dismiss
Answer:
(i) to express
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
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
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
II. Distinguish between the following pairs of sentences.
1. (i) He was visibly moved.
(ii) He was visually impaired.
Answer:
i. In a way that can be noticed.
ii. Related to one’s seeing or appearance
2. (i) Green and black stripes were used alternately.
(ii) Green stripes could be used or alternatively black ones.
Answer:
i. Occur in turn repeatedly
ii. As an option or possibility
3. (i) The team played the two matches successfully.
(ii) The team played two matches successively.
Answer:
i. Achieving aim or result
ii. Immediately one after another
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. With deference and respect
ii. Separately or individually and in the order already mentioned.
Talking with the text
Discuss the following statements in groups of two pairs, each pair in a group taking
opposite points of view.
1. A single event may change the course of the history of a nation.
Ans:
For-
A single event may change the course of the history of a nation. For example, The Battle of
Panipat is considered to be the turning point in the history of India. The Marathas lost it to the
forces of Ahmed Shah Abdali. The history of India changed after this event. The foreign
forces took over the country eventually. In the text, it is shown that in the beginning,
Professor Gaitonde was preparing to give a speech on how history would have turned out if
the Marathas had won the Battle of Panipat. This tells us how important an event could be in
the history of a country.
Against-
The statement that “A single event may change the course of the history of a nation” is based
on perspective only. It is a relative truth. We cannot just claim that anyone course of events is
a reality because there could be alternative outcomes of a single event in history. Since there
could be alternative outcomes, it is not fruitful to the debate over a single course. In the text,
a different version of the Battle of Panipat has been revealed to Professor Gaitonde in which
the Marathas won it. After that, the Marathas expand their influence all over the country and
India never succumbs to the foreign forces. So it is not tenable to argue that a single course of
events may change the course of history. There could be alternative outcomes following the
event as well.

2. Reality is what is directly experienced through the senses.

Ans:
For –
For us, our different senses – a sense of touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, provide the base or
facts about the world we are surrounded by. Every experience comes through these senses
and serves as a source of knowledge to us. Only what is experienced by the senses is
considered reality. Anything which is not revealed to the senses is unreal and does not exist.
Against –
Reality is not always experienced by the senses. There are so many things that our senses
cannot feel. Like atoms and molecules, but they are real and they do exist. Because we cannot
sense them, we cannot accurately understand the behavior of these entities. In the text,
Rajendra moots this point by telling about the discoveries made by the scientists about the
behavior of atoms. A prediction can be made regarding the position of a bullet fired in a
particular direction but the direction of an electron fired from a source cannot be predicted.
This shows that there could be alternative realities existing as well and it is not just restricted
to what is revealed to the senses.

3. The methods of inquiry of history, science, and philosophy are similar.

Ans:
For –
In the text, we can see that the perspectives of History, Science, and Philosophy converge
towards the same point of focus. In history, the course of past events is understood by the
methods of observation, analysis, and rationalism. The methods involved in science are –
observation, experimentation, and analysis. The most fundamental principle in science is
Rationalism. Philosophy follows a methodology based on thorough criticism.
Philosophy includes examining everything like methodology and assumptions of science and
other disciplines like history. In the text, we can see History, Philosophy, and Science
converging as Professor Gaitonde experiences a completely different consequence of the
Battle of Panipat where the Marathas come out as victorious, which is completely
contradictory to the version given in History textbooks where the Marathas lose. Prof.
Gaitonde failed to understand the rationality of all this. Later, Rajendra interceded and tried
to explain this with the help of the catastrophic theory. This theory is used by scientists to
understand the behavior of atoms. Here, we can see Science and History are converging.
Philosophy follows the same viewpoint where reality is not absolute but relative. This shows
that the methods of inquiry employed in History, Science, and Philosophy are rather similar.
Against –
In the text, when Rajendra tries to explain Gaitonde's experience by using the Catastrophic
theory, it convinces Gaitonde. However, it does not impress us enough. The phenomenon of
the physical world could be explained using the Catastrophic theory but History is about the
behavioral world, showing the behaviors of the people and society. Thus the method of
inquiry varies individually. Philosophy has a speculative method of inquiry that even
questions rationalism. The methods of Science and History do not converge with that of
philosophy. They are not similar. This text “The Adventure” is basically trying to show the
convergence of Science, History, and Philosophy. However, in reality, all of these disciplines
employ different methods of inquiry according to the matter of the subject.

4. Why do you think Prof. Gaitonde decides never to preside over meetings again?
Ans:
Prof. Gaitonde experiences a completely different consequence of the Battle of Panipat where
the Marathas emerge victoriously and then they extend their influence all over the country.
His mind witnesses a different version of a historical event. However, he also experiences an
event that does not conform to the conventions. The event is actually a lecture session on the
outcome of the Battle of Panipat. Prof. Gaitonde observes that the President’s chair was
vacant which was contrary to the conventions and he rushed to occupy the chair. He then
starts to explain why there is a need for a President in a lecture session like this one. The
public gets mad and starts throwing things at him. He has a horrible experience and thus
decides not to preside over meetings again.