Being reactionary is not responding logically and prudently to situations. The person instead reacts solely with primitive emotions and make bad decisions in the moment.
The partition of Bengal, said Lord Curzon, was a "mere readjustment of administrative boundaries." The argument advanced in favour of the partition was that it would improve the administration of the two provinces. But there were some evil motives for this action.1. To strike at the roots of Bengali Nationalism: The real motive was to break "the growing solidarity of Bengali nationalism." Bengal at that time was considered to be "the nerve-centre of India nationalism". Lord Curzon decided to crush the new spirit by Dividing the politically advanced communities into separate provinces.2.The Policy Of Divide & Rule: Another motive was to drive a wedge between the Hindus and the Muslims. In February 1904, Curzon went on a tour of East Bengal, where he addressed a number of meetings.He explained the Muslims that "His object in partitioning Bengal was not only to relieve the Bengal administration, but also to create a Mohammedan province".3.To demonstrate the strength of the British Raj: Lord Curzon was reactionary, having great dislike for democratic ideals.He believed that people of India, illiterate as the were, could have no political aspiration.Improved Answer:The partition took place in Bengal in 1905, because of some main purposes.Firstly, because of vastness of the province, the British viceroy Lord Curzon parted Bengal. The overall population of this province was 85 million people. It was very difficult for the present Governor to control such a large population and that is why Bengal was divided into East Bengal and West Bengal.Secondly, because of the limited source of communication, the Governor who was appointed to control this province was unable to communicate with the local people easily and that is why the Bengal was parted so that the Governor of each part of the province could easily communicate with the local people.Thirdly, because of the difference of languages of both Hindus and Muslims, both the parties were not ready to live together on one land and were very disrespectful for each other. There was a strike of anger among the two nations and that is why Bengal was parted so that the peace could be maintained in the province.
When Napoleon went into exile to the island of Elba, Louis XVIII and his family returned to the throne of his ancestors, accompanied by what looked a wave of popularity. It seemed that the Bourbon lilies had finally triumphed over the revolutionary tricolor tied with its unpleasant associations of bloody terror and Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. King Louis XVIII was a mediocre personality, well-meaning but obtuse that could not eradicate the nationalist forces released in 1789 by the revolution, no more than he could control his followers. With him returned a crowd of former emigrated, clergy and nobles dispossessed, who had fled abroad during the Terror, and now rRequested the restoration of their privileges and properties, eager to bring back the good old pre-revolutionary times. While Napoleon was busy tidying up his tiny principality and the Congress of Vienna, in the spare time between the endless sequence of balls and celebrations, was busy reshaping a disordered Europe, the popularity enjoyed by the Bourbon in the first period of their restoration decreased quickly. In many ways the new French regime was more liberal and enlightened than the last, because the demands of total war had cancelled under the Empire the civil rights and these were now guaranteed by the Charter of Bourbon. Serious attempts were also carried to restore the battered French economy, but these wise measures were not sufficient to allay the suspicions growing among the population, who considered the king, his family and the former emigrated just a collection of puppets, now protected by the France's enemies, whose task was that of destroy the ideal of the Revolution and restore sooner or later a reactionary power. Furthermore there were two other social classes which were suspicious or dissatisfied: the farmers, who suspected that the king would agree to the repeated claim of the nobles, former proprietors of the lands, in order that at least a portion of their former propriety were to be returned to them; the disbanded soldiers, discontented because at request of the victor powers, the French Army had been reduced to a shadow of what it had been. Many of them were suffering from hunger and, generally, the majority were facing a hard life because of lack of a job or extremely lower wages. The whole was the fertile ground that served to prepare the sudden and undetected return of Napoleon from Elba.
The Tagalog translation of the word "reactionary" is "reaksyonaryo."
Fascists and Nazis are (extreme) examples of reactionary groups.
The answer is exactly what you asked. The order is liberal, conservative, then reactionary.
NO
Charles X was a reactionary in the extreme. That's why they got rid of him.
In politics, reactionary means opposed to progress and the spread of freedom. The judges final statement to the defendant put a self descript reactionary expression on defendants' lawyer.
No status quo is not a reactionary position. Status quo means things stay the same. A reactionary position means things can change based on recent events.
The word reactionary refers to a person who holds views that favor a return. A good sentence would be, the governor was reactionary when it came to the suggestion of building a new casino in town.
What always was.
diehard
Antonym
A reactionary is a person who not only doesn´t wants change, but also wants to undo certain changes.