In your response, be sure to address all parts of the question. Use complete sentences, an outline or bulleted list alone is not acceptable.
Use the passage below to answer all parts of the question that follows.
"Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible
that under these circumstances two nations--the Muslims and the Hindus-could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not.
The aims and objects of the Indian National Congress are based upon an ignorance of history and present-day realities, they do not take into consideration that India is inhabited by different nationalities, they
presuppose that the various religions, castes, and ethnic groups of India can all be treated alike and all of them belong to the same nation. For the successful running of a democratic government, it is essential
that the majority should have the ability to govern not only themselves but also unwilling minorities. I consider the experiment that the Indian National Congress wants to make fraught with dangers and
suffering for all the nationalities of India, but especially for the Muslims. The Congress cannot rationally prove its claim to represent the opinions, ideals, and aspirations of the Muslims."
Syed Ahmad Khan, Indian Muslim educator and political reformer, speech given before the Muslim community of Meerut in northern India, 1888

a) Explain ONE way that the passage illustrates a response to European colonialism

b) Explain ONE way in which the circumstances of the speech might have affected the author's argument in the passage

c) Explain ONE way in which the author's point of view is significant for illustrating how European ideologies influenced the development of Indian society in the nineteenth century

 a) One way that the passage illustrates a response to European colonialism is when the passage first starts off. As it begins with the statement, "suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India", implying that the Muslims and Hindus would not remain in equal power and leads to the inference that it would cause chaos. It shows that British Government has colonized India and had taken control over the country both politically and economically. Although, it was not just the British Government Ahmad Khan was frustrated about because he mentions that "...they do not take into consideration that India is inhabited by different nationalities; they presuppose that the various religions, castes, and ethnic groups of India can all be treated alike and all of them belong to the same nation." His statement explains that India was controlled by various countries, so it barely had any power, nonetheless, any say about its people and ethnic groups because they were treated all the same.    

 b)  One way that the circumstances of the speech may have affected the author's argument in this passage is that since the speech was most likely made to oppose the Indian National Congress, the author seems to have biased on their part due to their point of view that the European colonialism taking place in India is a good thing that retained the peace and order. The statement, "the Congress cannot rationally prove its claim to represent the opinions, ideals, and aspirations of the Muslims" provides the author's argument against the Indian National Congress' interests and aims in mobilizing and integrating India as one united country.    

c)  One way in which the author's point of view is significant for illustrating how European ideologies influenced the development of Indian society in the nineteenth century is how Ahmad Khan, though he may have wished to keep the peace and equality among religion and differing opinions, thought that keeping that a tense-but-mutual understanding was better than going through any violent wars. While it may seem confusing and backwards, there were some things that humans, when faced with a situation like in India, cannot get over with words alone. Most, if not all, largely united and successful countries had gone through wars (civil or otherwise) or were going to, and keeping that peace between the European colonialism could be seen as a barrier of protection from development and a nationalistic viewpoint. This can be found when the statement, "then who would-be rulers of India?they presuppose that the various religions, castes, and ethnic groups of India can all be treated alike and all of them belong to the same nation" is said, as it illustrates that European ideologies have influenced the development of Indian society in the nineteenth century as well as become the central power of rule.

true

coz they had the rank system in society according to the economic power of the people

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!