NCERT Solutions for Class 7th Social Science Chapter 17 A stranger at the door

Q1.

Imagine this scenario — A stranger knocks at your door at midnight. It is raining heavily outside, and the stranger seeks shelter for the night claiming that his car broke down while he was driving in the vicinity. Your family goes into a huddle to discuss the pros and cons of letting a stranger into the house at night. Form two groups to discuss the arguments for and against in this scenario.

Answer

How to do this activity. Split the class in two. Group A argues for letting the stranger in, Group B argues against. Each group gets five minutes to list its points, then two minutes each to present. Nobody is “right” at the end — the purpose is to see that both sides are made of real reasons, which is exactly why the family in the story “goes into a huddle” instead of deciding at once.

What a good set of arguments needs: reasons, not feelings alone; at least one point about safety, one about the stranger’s situation, and one about what you would want if you were the stranger; and an answer to the other group’s strongest point.

Group A — for letting him in	Group B — against letting him in
It is midnight and raining hard. A person left outside in that could fall ill or be in danger. Refusing costs him a great deal and costs us very little	We know nothing about him. The whole story — the car, the breakdown, the road — is only his claim, and we cannot check any of it at midnight
Atithi devo bhava — “a guest is like God”. Shelter for a night is the oldest kind of help there is, and our own tradition treats it as a duty	There are children and elderly people in the house. Their safety is our first responsibility, and it is not ours to gamble with
If our family were stranded far from home on such a night, we would hope somebody opened a door for us	Once someone is inside a house at night, it is very hard to undo the decision if it turns out to be wrong
There are ways to help without risk — the choice is not only “in” or “out”	Helping is not the same as hosting. We can help him without opening the door

Sample answer: Both groups are arguing about the same two things — the stranger’s need and our family’s safety. Our group would let him in, but not blindly. We would first call the police helpline and tell them a stranger has come; ask his name and see an identity card; offer him the verandah or the outer room rather than the inside of the house; give him tea, a towel and a phone to call for help; and keep one adult awake. That way we act on atithi devo bhava without ignoring the very real point the other group makes. If any of those steps went wrong — if he refused to give a name, for instance — we would help him from the doorstep instead: an umbrella, a hot drink, and the number of a mechanic.

Why this question is placed here: the chapter is about to describe communities that arrived at India’s door with nothing but their story. Before you read about them, the book wants you to feel how the decision to open a door actually feels — cautious, uncomfortable, and honourable.

Q2.

Now extend this scenario to a country like India — when refugees seek shelter in India, will similar arguments apply?

Answer

Yes — the two sides are the same, but everything about them gets bigger, slower and more official. The stranger at the door becomes people at a border; the family huddle becomes a government decision; “letting him in” becomes shelter, food, schools and papers for years, not one night.

	One stranger at a door	Refugees arriving in a country
The reason to help	He is cold and it is raining	People have fled war or persecution and cannot go home — the chapter’s Polish orphans and Tibetan refugees are exactly this
The worry	We do not know who he is	Security checks, and whether there is enough housing, work, water and school space where they arrive
Who decides	The family, in a few minutes	The government, under law, with police, officials and often organisations like the Red Cross helping
How long it lasts	One night	Years, sometimes generations. Every community in this chapter is still here
What “helping properly” means	Tea, a towel, a dry corner	The chapter’s own list for the Tibetans: the government “rehabilitated the Tibetan refugees, provided education to their children, and facilitated the creation of Tibetan settlements”

Sample answer: Yes, similar arguments apply, but with one important difference. A family can only decide with what it knows at midnight; a country can find out. It can register who arrives, check their story, and decide where they can live and how they will be supported. So the honest position is not “open the door to everyone” or “open it to nobody” — it is “open it, and organise it”. That is what the chapter describes India doing. Maharaja Digvijaysinhji did not simply say yes to the Polish children; he “mobilised the Red Cross and other organisations to help him rescue the children and take them to Jamnagar”, then housed and fed them, and “the children and others returned home safely after the war ended”. The Government of India did not simply admit Tibetan refugees in 1959; it granted asylum, then built settlements and schools.

Keep in mind while you debate: the people being discussed are real communities, and several of them are our fellow citizens today. Argue about the decision, never about the worth of the people. The chapter’s own standard is the line from Sri Sarada Devi on the opening page: “No one is a stranger, my child; the whole world is your own.”

NCERT Solutions for Class 7th Social Science Chapter 17 A stranger at the door — THINK ABOUT IT