Belgium and Sri Lanka – Long Answer Questions (CBSE Class 10 Social Politics)
Medium Level (Application & Explanation)
Q1. Explain how Belgium handled ethnic and linguistic diversity through its system of power sharing. What were its main features and outcomes?
Answer:
Belgium adopted a power-sharing model to manage Dutch-speaking, French-speaking, and German-speaking communities.
It created a federal system where power is shared among the federal government, community governments (for language and culture), and regional governments (for territory and economy).
The federal cabinet includes an equal number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers, ensuring no domination by one group.
Brussels is governed by bilingual rules, respecting both Dutch and French speakers.
Each community runs its own schools and cultural institutions, protecting language rights.
This structure gave autonomy to different groups while keeping national unity intact.
Outcome: Greater trust, peace, and stability; minorities felt respected and included.
The model shows that accommodation and recognition of diversity strengthen democracy and national integration.
Q2. Describe how Sri Lanka’s majoritarian approach affected its ethnic relations. Mention policies and their consequences.
Answer:
After independence, Sri Lanka followed majoritarianism, giving exclusive power to the Sinhalese majority.
The Sinhala Only Act (1956) made Sinhala the sole official language, excluding Tamil from government use.
The government remained unitary and centralized, with no special arrangements for Tamil representation or autonomy.
Indian Tamils were denied citizenship, weakening their political voice and social security.
Public services and resources increasingly favored the majority community, deepening perceived injustice.
Tamils felt alienated and discriminated against, losing trust in the state’s fairness.
The absence of power-sharing and language rights created frustration, protests, and mistrust.
Outcome: Long periods of ethnic conflict and civil war, harming national unity, development, and social harmony.
Q3. Compare the federal structure of Belgium with the unitary structure of Sri Lanka. How did each model influence national unity?
Answer:
Belgium’s federalism divides power among federal, community, and regional governments, recognizing linguistic and cultural identities.
This creates shared sovereignty, where local issues are handled by the communities/regions, and national issues by the federal level.
It ensures representation, autonomy, and mutual respect; thus it promotes unity through diversity.
Sri Lanka’s unitary system centralized authority in the national government.
Without power-sharing, minority communities had limited influence in decision-making.
Policies like the Sinhala Only Act and denial of citizenship to Indian Tamils signaled exclusion.
Belgium’s approach led to peace and cooperation, while Sri Lanka’s model bred resentment and conflict.
Lesson: Decentralization and inclusive policies can strengthen unity, whereas over-centralization may strain social cohesion in diverse societies.
Q4. What was the significance of bilingual rules in Brussels and equal ministerial representation in Belgium?
Answer:
Brussels, the capital, is home to both French and Dutch speakers. The bilingual rules allow administration, education, and public services in both languages.
This ensures equal access and dignity for both groups, reducing linguistic tensions in a diverse city.
The federal cabinet includes an equal number of ministers from Dutch and French language groups.
This prevents majority domination at the highest level and builds confidence among minorities.
These arrangements serve as institutional safeguards that turn representation into a daily reality, not just a promise.
The combined effect is the normalization of diversity, where differences are managed by rules, not left to power struggles.
Result: Greater stability, cooperation, and shared ownership of the state by all communities.
Q5. Why is power sharing considered essential in a democracy? Use examples from Belgium and Sri Lanka to support your answer.
Answer:
Power sharing ensures that all groups—especially minorities—have a voice in governance.
It prevents the concentration of power, which can lead to abuse, discrimination, or alienation.
In Belgium, power is shared across communities and regions, with bilingual rules and equal ministerial representation. This led to peace, trust, and cooperation.
In Sri Lanka, the majoritarian approach (e.g., Sinhala Only Act, centralized authority, denial of citizenship to Indian Tamils) excluded minorities.
This exclusion caused resentment, protests, and eventually civil conflict, weakening national unity and development.
Therefore, power sharing is both morally right (fairness) and practically wise (stability).
It treats diversity as a strength and offers institutional mechanisms to manage differences in a peaceful, democratic manner.
High Complexity (Analytical & Scenario-Based)
Q6. Suppose a newly independent country has three large linguistic groups and a diverse capital city. Design a power-sharing plan inspired by Belgium to prevent conflict.
Answer:
Create a federal structure with:
A federal government for national issues (defense, currency, foreign policy).
Community governments for each linguistic group to manage language, culture, and education.
Regional governments for territorial issues like infrastructure and economy.
In the capital city, implement bilingual or multilingual rules for administration, courts, and public services.
Ensure the national cabinet has equal or proportionate representation from all language groups.
Form a constitutional court to protect minority rights and resolve disputes.
Guarantee civil service quotas or balanced recruitment to avoid bias.
Protect language rights in schools and media; promote intercultural programs.
Provide autonomy without undermining national unity; use shared symbols and inclusive national holidays.
This plan builds trust, reduces fear of domination, and promotes stable coexistence.
Q7. Evaluate how language policies can unite or divide a nation. Use the Sinhala Only Act and Belgium’s bilingual policy as contrasting cases.
Answer:
Language policy shapes access to state power, education, and jobs; thus it deeply affects belonging.
The Sinhala Only Act (1956) made Sinhala the sole official language in Sri Lanka, excluding Tamil from government use.
This created barriers for Tamils in public employment and administration, signaling second-class status.
The policy intensified grievances, leading to mistrust and conflict.
In contrast, Belgium’s bilingual rules in Brussels and recognition of Dutch and French nationally ensured equal access and dignity.
People could use their mother tongue in public services, courts, and schools, reducing linguistic insecurity.
Inclusive language policies act as bridges, while exclusive ones become fault lines.
Balanced policies should combine official multilingualism, translation services, and language education, promoting unity through respect.
Q8. If Sri Lanka had adopted a power-sharing model in the 1950s, what likely changes would have occurred in its society and politics?
Answer:
A federal or semi-federal arrangement with regional autonomy for Tamil-majority areas could have given voice and dignity to minorities.
Recognizing Tamil alongside Sinhala in administration and education might have improved access to jobs and public services for Tamils.
Shared cabinets and guaranteed representation could have prevented the perception of domination by the majority.
Constitutional safeguards and independent institutions might have addressed grievances peacefully.
Reduced alienation would likely have lowered the chances of ethnic conflict and civil war.
Socially, more inter-ethnic trust and mobility might have developed; economically, stability could have attracted investment and improved development.
Politically, parties may have formed coalitions across communities, normalizing compromise over confrontation.
Overall, a shared-power path likely fostered unity, prosperity, and long-term peace.
Q9. “Autonomy can trigger separatism.” Critically assess this claim using Belgium’s federalism and Sri Lanka’s centralization as references.
Answer:
The fear is that giving autonomy to regions or communities may embolden separatist demands.
However, Belgium’s federalism shows that structured autonomy with clear constitutional rules, shared institutions, and power balances can actually reduce separatist pressures by meeting legitimate needs.
Equal representation, bilingual policies, and community rights built trust, making the state feel inclusive rather than oppressive.
In Sri Lanka, centralization and majoritarianism failed to address minority grievances, which contributed to radicalization and conflict.
The lesson is not that autonomy breeds separatism, but that unaddressed injustice does.
Effective autonomy requires checks and balances, *...
