Enforcement Officer / Accounts Officer (EO/AO) 2020 recruitment test, advertisement 421. Transcribed from the Commission's own booklet (series A, NMJX-U-GTA); answer as per the official UPSC final answer key. This question is in Part B. Answer last reviewed 24 August 2026.

Who produced the Pirpur Report (1938) ?

(a)Muslim League
(b)Unionist Party
(c)Ahrar Party
(d)Indian National Congress

Answer

Why

Correct — A, (a) Muslim League.

The Pirpur Report of 1938 was produced by a committee of inquiry appointed by the All-India Muslim League. It takes its name from its chairman, Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur, a League member returned at the provincial elections of 1937 in the United Provinces.

Its purpose was political. The elections of 1937 had put Congress ministries into office in most of the provinces of British India, and the League set out to document what it presented as the sufferings of Muslims under those ministries. The report catalogued a set of grievances that recur in the League’s literature of these years: the singing of Vande Mataram at official functions, the promotion of Hindi at the expense of Urdu, the use of the Congress tricolour as though it were a national flag, discrimination in public appointments, and the instigation of Hindu tenants against Muslim landlords.

The Pirpur Report was not an isolated document. It belongs with the Sharif Report of the same period, which made a comparable case about Bihar, and with A. K. Fazlul Huq’s pamphlet ‘Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule’. Together these formed the League’s indictment of the Congress ministries of 1937 to 1939.

The sequel matters as much as the report. When the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared India a belligerent on 3 September 1939 without consulting Indian opinion, the Congress Working Committee called on its ministries to resign, which they did on 22 October 1939. Jinnah then issued an appeal on 2 December 1939 calling on Muslims to observe 22 December 1939 as a ‘Day of Deliverance’ from Congress rule — a direct use of the case the Pirpur and Sharif Reports had assembled.

Why the others are wrong

(b)Unionist Party — The Unionist Party was the dominant party of the Punjab in this period, and it was the League’s rival there rather than its instrument. Its whole basis was the opposite of the Pirpur Report’s: it was a cross-communal party built on the interests of the landholding classes, bringing Muslim, Hindu and Sikh landlords together on agrarian rather than religious lines, and it governed the Punjab through the years the report was written. A party constructed to hold a coalition of communities together had no reason to produce a document cataloguing the grievances of one community against another. Its presence in the option set is meant to catch a candidate who recognises the name as belonging to Muslim provincial politics of the 1930s without recalling what the party actually stood for.
(c)Ahrar Party — The Majlis-e-Ahrar was another rival of the Muslim League, and one that disputed the League’s claim to speak for Indian Muslims at all. It was an organisation of a quite different temper — religiously grounded, popular in its base, and hostile to the League’s leadership of landed and professional notables. It would not have produced a report designed to strengthen the League’s hand against the Congress ministries. The option is placed on the list to test whether a candidate can distinguish the several Muslim political organisations of the 1930s, which is a real distinction and not a technicality: the League’s claim to be the sole representative of Indian Muslims was contested by the Ahrars, by the Unionists in the Punjab and by the Krishak Praja Party in Bengal.
(d)Indian National Congress — The Congress was the SUBJECT of the report, not its author. The whole document is an indictment of the Congress ministries that took office after the 1937 elections, so the Congress producing it would invert the politics of the period entirely. This is the option that a candidate who has never met the report will nevertheless eliminate first, and doing so is the right instinct: when a report is known to be a catalogue of grievances, the body complained against is almost never the body complaining. The Congress replied to the charges in its own way, and its president appointed inquiries into some of them, but the Pirpur Report itself was the League’s.

Concept

The Pirpur Report belongs to the short and consequential period of the first Congress ministries, and that period is what the question is really testing.

The Government of India Act 1935 introduced provincial autonomy, and elections were held under it early in 1937. The Congress won majorities in most provinces and formed ministries in a large majority of them; the Muslim League fared poorly in the seats reserved for Muslims, and its claim to be the sole representative of Indian Muslims looked weak against the Unionists in the Punjab, the Krishak Praja Party in Bengal and the Ahrars elsewhere. It was in these two years that the League rebuilt that claim, and the method it chose was to document the record of Congress rule.

Three documents carried the case. The PIRPUR REPORT of 1938, from the League committee chaired by the Raja of Pirpur, covering the United Provinces and the general charge. The SHARIF REPORT, making the comparable case for Bihar. And A. K. Fazlul Huq’s ‘Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule’. The grievances they set out were symbolic as much as material — the anthem, the flag, the language of administration — which is itself a historical point worth noticing, because it shows how quickly the question of who the state belonged to had become a question about symbols.

The chain of events after them is a standard examination sequence. Linlithgow declares India a belligerent on 3 September 1939 without consulting the provincial governments. The Congress Working Committee demands a statement of war aims and, receiving none, directs its ministries to resign; they go on 22 October 1939. Jinnah, on 2 December 1939, calls on Muslims to observe 22 December 1939 as a Day of Deliverance. Three months later, in March 1940, the League adopts the Lahore Resolution.

Knowing the other parties matters as much as knowing the League. The UNIONIST PARTY of the Punjab was cross-communal and landlord-based, and it governed the province. The MAJLIS-E-AHRAR was a rival Muslim organisation that opposed the League’s claim to sole representation. Neither served the League’s purposes, and both are regularly offered as distractors on items about League documents.

This is a one-line recall item from the modern-history block of Part B, and it shows what the author guide means by a short stem that still supports a full card. There is nothing to unpack in the question and nothing to weigh in the options; the whole item turns on whether a candidate can attach a named report to the body that produced it.

The strand this belongs to — reports, committees and documents of the national movement — is one of the most reliably tested on these papers, because each item is compact and unambiguous. The way to prepare it is as a list with three columns: the name of the document, the year, and the body or person behind it. The Pirpur Report, 1938, Muslim League. The Nehru Report, 1928, the All Parties Conference. The Sapru Report, 1945. The Wavell Plan, 1945. The Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946.

There is also a lesson in how the option set is built. All four options are political organisations of the same decade, and three of them are Muslim or Muslim-majority in composition, so a candidate matching on community alone cannot choose. What separates them is their relation to the Congress ministries: one built its case against them, one governed a province in coalition, one contested the first’s claim to leadership, and one was the target.

Key facts

The Pirpur Report of 1938 was produced by a committee of inquiry of the All-India Muslim League.
It is named after its chairman, Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur, a League member returned at the 1937 provincial elections in the United Provinces.
It catalogued Muslim grievances under the Congress ministries: Vande Mataram, the promotion of Hindi over Urdu, the tricolour, discrimination in appointments, and the instigation of Hindu tenants against Muslim landlords.
It belongs with the Sharif Report, on Bihar, and with A. K. Fazlul Huq’s ‘Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule’.
The Congress ministries had been formed after the provincial elections of 1937, held under the Government of India Act 1935.
Lord Linlithgow declared India a belligerent on 3 September 1939 without consulting Indian opinion, and the Congress ministries resigned on 22 October 1939.
Jinnah’s appeal of 2 December 1939 called on Muslims to observe 22 December 1939 as a ‘Day of Deliverance’.
The Unionist Party of the Punjab was a cross-communal, landlord-based party and a rival of the League; the Majlis-e-Ahrar was a rival Muslim organisation that disputed the League’s claim to sole representation.

Who could have produced it — and who is its subject

Muslim League→The report was produced by a committee of inquiry appointed by the All-India Muslim League, and takes its name from its chairman, Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur, a League member returned at the provincial elections of 1937 in the United Provinces.

Indian National Congress→The SUBJECT of the report, not its author. The whole document is an indictment of the Congress ministries that took office after the 1937 elections, so Congress authorship would invert the politics of the period entirely.

Unionist Party→The dominant party of the Punjab in this period, and the League’s rival there rather than its instrument. Its basis was the opposite of the report’s: a cross-communal party built on the interests of the landholding classes, bringing Muslim, Hindu and Sikh landlords together on agrarian rather than religious lines.

Ahrar Party→The Majlis-e-Ahrar, another rival, and one that disputed the League’s claim to speak for Indian Muslims at all — religiously grounded and popular in its base, and hostile to the League’s leadership of landed and professional notables.

What the report catalogued→Grievances under the Congress ministries: the singing of Vande Mataram at official functions, the promotion of Hindi at the expense of Urdu, the use of the Congress tricolour as though it were a national flag, discrimination in public appointments, and the instigation of Hindu tenants against Muslim landlords — symbolic as much as material.

It was not an isolated document→It belongs with the Sharif Report, which made the comparable case for Bihar, and with A. K. Fazlul Huq’s pamphlet ‘Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule’. The sequel: Linlithgow declared India a belligerent on 3 September 1939 without consulting Indian opinion, the Congress ministries resigned on 22 October 1939, and Jinnah’s appeal of 2 December called on Muslims to observe 22 December 1939 as a ‘Day of Deliverance’.

Study next

The Government of India Act 1935, provincial autonomy and the elections of 1937.The Congress ministries of 1937–39, their record and their resignation.The Lahore Resolution of March 1940 and the development of the two-nation theory.Muslim politics outside the League — the Unionist Party, the Krishak Praja Party, the Majlis-e-Ahrar and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.The major reports and plans of the national movement: Nehru Report 1928, August Offer 1940, Cripps Mission 1942, Wavell Plan and Simla Conference 1945, Cabinet Mission 1946.The Day of Deliverance and the communal politics of the war years.

Common traps

Choosing the Indian National Congress because its name appears in every discussion of the report. It was the target of the report, not its author.
Treating all the Muslim political organisations of the 1930s as interchangeable. The Unionists and the Ahrars were rivals of the League, not its allies.
Confusing the Pirpur Report with the Sharif Report. Both are League documents of the same campaign, but they cover different provinces.
Dating the report to the war years. It belongs to 1938, before the resignation of the Congress ministries in October 1939.
Assuming a report named after a place was produced by a government body. Pirpur is the title of the committee’s chairman, not an official commission.

Document items on EPFO EO/AO papers are asked in two directions — name the author of a report, or name the report produced by a body — and the option sets are drawn from organisations of the same decade so that the period alone gives nothing away. The reports of the late 1930s and the 1940s are the most heavily worked, because that is where the constitutional negotiations cluster. A list of about twenty documents with year and author, revised until each name carries both, covers this strand almost completely.

Related PYQs

EPFO_EOAO_2020_Q33Open & attempt →

Who among the following was the President of the Indian National Congress at the time of independence of India ?

(a) Pattabhi Sitaramayya
(b) Jawaharlal Nehru
(c) Abul Kalam Azad
(d) J.B. Kripalani

Answer(d) J.B. Kripalani

The Congress-presidency item from the same block; the presidency it asks about follows directly on the years the Pirpur Report was written about.

EPFO_EOAO_2020_Q32Open & attempt →

Who among the following is the author of ‘Gandhi as Mahatma’ ?

(a) Mahadev Desai
(b) Shahid Amin
(c) Louis Fischer
(d) David Arnold

Answer(b) Shahid Amin

The other authorship item in this block, on the historian who wrote ‘Gandhi as Mahatma’ — the same testing shape applied to modern scholarship rather than to a political document.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
The Congress ministries formed after the elections of 1937 resigned in October 1939 principally over which one of the following ?
- (a)The publication of the Pirpur Report
- (b)The declaration of India as a belligerent in the Second World War without consulting Indian opinion
- (c)The adoption of the Lahore Resolution by the Muslim League
- (d)The refusal of the Governors to assent to provincial legislation
Answer(b) The declaration of India as a belligerent in the Second World War without consulting Indian opinion — Lord Linlithgow made the declaration on 3 September 1939, and the Congress ministries resigned on 22 October 1939.
practice — not a real PYQ
The ‘Day of Deliverance’, observed on 22 December 1939, was called for by which one of the following ?
- (a)The Indian National Congress
- (b)The Hindu Mahasabha
- (c)Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League
- (d)The Unionist Party of the Punjab
Answer(c) Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League — his appeal of 2 December 1939 called on Muslims to observe the day after the Congress ministries resigned in October 1939.

Why