1 Where had the man built his hut in The
Gentlemen of the Jungle? OR Where was
the man's hut located in the forest?
At the edge of the forest.
2. What did the elephant wish to protect
from the hailstorm?
It's trunk.
3. hat did the elephant do
to the man after putting his trunk and
head inside the hut? OR What did the
elephant do after it occupied the hut? OR
Where did the elephant fling the man?
It flung the man out in the rain.
4. What did the lion wish to have in his
kingdom?
:Peace and tranquillity.
5. Who commanded the ministers to
appoint a Commission of Enquiry?
Answer: The lion king.
6. Why was no human being included in
the Commission of Enquiry? Answer:
They were not educated enough to
They were not educated enough to
understand the intricacies of jungle law.
7. Who appointed the members of the
Commission?
Answer: The man was unhappy with the
members of the Commission of Enquiry
because there was no representation from
his side.
8. 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.
Answer: (c) to save the hut from the
hurricane.
9 In whose favour was the judgement
given?
Answer: In favour of the elephant.
10 Why did the man accept the suggestion
of building a new hut?
accept the judgement of the Commission?
Answer: The man had no alternative as he
was afraid that his refusal to build another
hut on another site would expose him to the
teeth and claws of members of the JUNGLE
COMMISION.
10 How did the man 'buy' peace finally?
Answer: The man built a hut big enough to
accommodate all the animals and when all
the animals got inside the hut and started
fighting among themselves, he burnt the
hut along with all the lords of the jungle.
Comprehension I|
1. Why was the Commission of Enquiry
appointed by the king of the jungle? OR
Why did the lion command his ministers
to appoint a Commission of Enquiry?
Answer: The king of the jungle claimed
that he wanted peace and tranquillity in
his kingdom. With his sweet words, he
convinced the man that justice would be
meted out to him through the findings of
meted out to him through the findings of
the Commission. Thus, the Commission of
Enquiry was appointed by the king of the
jungle under the pretext of doing justice to
the man.
2. Why did the animals decide not to have
anyone from the man's side on the
Commission of Enquiry? OR How did the
members of the Commission of Enquiry
justify their act of not including any
man?
Answer: The animals decided not to have
anyone from the man's side on the
Commission of Enquiry based on the
argument that there was no one well-
educated From the man's side to know the
intricacies of the jungle law. However, the
unstated truth is the fact that right from
the beginning, the Commission had no
intention of doing any justice to the man
and hence had representatives only from
the elephant's side. Ironically, the elephant
the elephant's side. Ironically, the elephant
himself, against whom the case was
registered, constituted the Commission
along with the other ministers of the king.
3. "How did the elephant justify its act of
occupying the hut?
Answer: The elephant had absolutely no
qualms while justifying its territorial
occupation of the man's hut. It deposed
before the Commission that the man
hadasked 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. Do you think the verdict of the
Commission of Enquiry was on expected
lines? Why?
As expected, the judgement was in favour
of the elephant because all thE
members on the Commission were
representatives from the elephant's side.
Moreover, none of the jungle representatives
cared for justice. They were all selfish and
hypocritical people, just as the jungle king
lion himself was
5. What fate awaited the man each time he
built a new house?
Answer: Each time the man built a new
house, it was forcefully occupied by one or
the other animal of the jungle kingdom.
The man was thrown out of his own house.
The man's state was really pitiable because
each time he was promised justice, but each
time he was denied justice.
The Gentlemen of the
JungleComprehension III
1. Do you agree with the action of the man
at the end? Why?
Answer: The man's action can be
understood as justified retribution
(vengeance, revenge, punishment). We
must remember the fact that after having
tried repeatedly for justice in a peaceful
manner and only down the hut along with
all the animals inside. Even here, the truth
remains that if the animals hadn't
illegally occupied the hut which was not
built by them, the tragic fate wouldn't
have fallen on them. Thus, in whichever
angle we take, the man's action can be
understood and justified. We should
remember that tolerating crime is as bad
as committing it.
2. 'An act of kindness is misunderstood as
weakness! Discuss this with reference to
the story.
Answer: The man's act of kindness of
letting the elephant put his trunk inside
hut in order to protect the trunk from the
heavy rain is taken undue advantage of
by the elephant. The elephant does not have
the grace to understand an act of
kindness and takes it as a sign of
weakness. In its selfishness, it does great
injustice to a friend who rises to the
occasion in the true spirit of a friend in
need. Further, the elephant takes recourse to
the argument that other animals in his
position would have done the
3. 'Peace is costly but it is worth the
expense.' What is the ironical significance
of this statement?
Answer: The words 'Peace is costly but it is
worth the expense' are ironically used
because the man had to lose his huts
repeatedly before he finally overcame his
enemies ®with a ruse (plot, trick).
Ordinarily, we do not talk in terms of
money when we talk of peace. But, in the
case of the man, peace gets linked to his
property. In terms of colonisation too peace
gets y linked to wealth because the natives
are colonised for their wealth by the
colonisers. However, the urge for freedom
remains alive in the hearts of the colonised
and all the sacrifices made will be
considered worthy of the effort.
4. Every fable ends with a moral. What
'moral' do you find in this story?
Answer: The moral of this fable lies in the
warning given to the powerful animals. It
is clearly seen that the meek can overcome
the mighty if the meek are pushed against
the wall. If the mighty think that they can
continue unabated in their wrongdoing,
they will be proved wrong by the meek.