With reference to Congress Socialist Party, consider the following statements : 1. It advocated the boycott of British goods and evasion of taxes. 2. It wanted to establish the dictatorship of proletariat. 3. It advocated separate electorate for minorities and oppressed classes. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Shows the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) formed within the Congress as a group wanting a more radical and egalitarian Congress, indicating ideological proximity to more activist tactics.

A student could combine this with knowledge that radical Congress factions often supported Swadeshi/boycott campaigns to judge whether CSP might have adopted similar tactics.

Notes that Socialists were initially unwilling to join the Constituent Assembly because they viewed it as a British creation, implying a principled opposition to British-established institutions.

One could infer that such anti-British institutional stance may align with economic protest methods (e.g., boycotts) used by other anti-British groups, and check historical records for CSP actions.

Describes that some workers participating in Civil Disobedience selectively adopted Gandhian programmes like the boycott of foreign goods as part of broader anti-colonial protest.

A student could use this pattern—that diverse groups within the freedom movement adopted boycotts—to assess whether a radical subgroup like the CSP likely endorsed such measures.

Explains that militant nationalists added boycott (including boycott of government institutions and commerce) to their programme to make British administration/commercial exploitation difficult.

Since the CSP emerged as a more radical faction within Congress, a student could extend this pattern to hypothesize CSP sympathy for or adoption of boycott tactics and then seek direct evidence.

Gives a general pattern of boycott: merchants refused foreign goods and urban boycott led to increased indigenous production, but had practical limits—showing boycott was a common tactic with contingency.

A student could use this operational description to evaluate whether the CSP, given its social base and goals, would realistically promote or rely on boycotts.

States the CSP was formed within Congress by young leaders seeking a more radical and egalitarian programme, indicating willingness to adopt stronger oppositional tactics than mainstream Congress.

A student could combine this with general knowledge that radical groups sometimes favoured civil-disobedience measures (e.g., tax refusal) and then check CSP manifestos or contemporaneous reports for calls to refuse taxes.

Notes influence of Marxist/socialist ideas on younger nationalists who 'advocated radical solutions' to economic and political ills, suggesting ideological openness to confrontational tactics against state authority.

One could extend this by comparing known tactics used by Marxist-inspired groups elsewhere (e.g., tax resistance as protest) and search primary CSP sources for parallel prescriptions.

Describes Ram Manohar Lohia's strategy of 'non-Congressism'—an active, oppositional political strategy arguing for coordinated exclusion of Congress—showing CSP/related socialists formulated explicit oppositional tactics.

A student might reason that an explicit oppositional strategy could include non-cooperation measures (potentially including tax resistance) and so investigate whether 'non-cooperation' episodes involved tax evasion.

Says the CSP had its own constitution, membership and discipline, indicating it was an organized group capable of endorsing collective tactics (legal or extralegal).

Knowing an organized party can issue collective directives, one could look for party resolutions or circulars that recommend tax non-payment as a coordinated tactic.

Describes CSP as formed within Congress in 1934 by leaders who wanted a more radical and egalitarian Congress—identifies CSP as a socialist grouping but embedded in mainstream Congress politics.

A student could contrast being 'radical and egalitarian' inside a broad party with explicit calls for proletarian dictatorship by checking whether CSP leaders advocated overthrowing parliamentary democracy or only social reform.

States CSP had its own constitution, membership, discipline and ideology while remaining a faction of Congress until 1948—implies organized socialist programme but within party structures.

One could examine CSP's documented constitution or public demands (outside these snippets) to see if they call for proletarian dictatorship versus democratic socialist reforms.

Notes CSP remained within Congress till 1948 and then split to form a separate Socialist Party and later merged into Praja Socialist Party—indicates CSP pursued electoral politics rather than immediate revolutionary seizure of power.

A student could use this electoral-history clue to check whether CSP contested elections and sought power through ballots (incompatible with immediate dictatorship-of-proletariat aims).

Explains the Communist Party later declared advancing to socialism through peaceful and parliamentary means and commitment to civil liberties—gives an explicit example of how an Indian left party framed route to socialism.

Compare this Communist Party example to CSP positions: if CSP rhetoric resembles parliamentary peaceful transition rather than seizing power by a workers' dictatorship, that argues against the statement.

Names CSP founders/leaders (Narendra Dev, Jayaprakash Narayan) and situates CSP among various Congress tendencies aiming for a socialist programme rather than a separate revolutionary movement.

A student could research (beyond these snippets) the public statements/writings of these leaders to see whether they endorsed proletarian dictatorship or parliamentary/social reform paths.