All questions of The Tale of Melon City for Class 11 Exam

The king noticed that the crowd of spectators had become restless and people were muttering aloud. He judged their mood. He trembled to think of the consequences if they were deprived of the fun of watching someone being hanged. So, in order to save his skin, he ordered that someone be hanged immediately.

When the king rode down the thoroughfare, his crown was knocked down. The king at once ordered that the chief of builders should be hanged

Various people advocate various means of maintaining peace and liberty in a state. Some are in favour of dictatorship while others favour democracy. I think the best course lies in good governance. Whatever is well-administered is most fruitful for the citizens as well as the rulers. It ensures peace and liberty to the common man. A strong state, in itself, is safe against any external threat. Dedicated rulers, enlightened citizens and proper law enforcing agencies can establish peace and harmony in the state. Narrow considerations based on region, religion, caste etc. should be discouraged because these are potent threat to internal security as they fuel dissensions among the people. Free expression of opinions must be allowed but respect for law and order be observed. People should be conscious of their privileges and rights as well as duties and responsibilities. This is the only way to maintain peace and liberty.

The king found himself in a difficult situation after hearing the architect’s argument. He said that it was an intricate matter and he needed someone’s advice. He ordered to bring to him the wisest man in the country. The wisest man was found and brought to the Royal Court. He said that the arch was the real culprit. It impudently hit the crown which fell off. So the arch must be hanged. Suddenly a councillor said that it would be a very shameful act to hang the arch that touched His Majesty’s head. It seemed true to the king. He was at a loss what to do. Meanwhile, he saw the crowd was getting restless and they wanted a hanging. So he declared that someone must be hanged. The noose was set up. It was somewhat high. Each man was measured turn by turn. But there was only one man who was tall enough to fit in the noose, and it was the king. His Majesty was, therefore, hanged by Royal Decree.

King, feminine queen, a supreme ruler, sovereign over a nation or a territory, of higher rank than any other secular ruler except an emperor, to whom a king may be subject. The concept of divinity, brought in from Egypt, characterized the Hellenistic Age, and was later revived by the Roman emperors.

The people are not at all ashamed to have a melon as their king. They say that if the king rejoices in being a melon, that’s all right with them. They find no fault with him as long as he leaves them to enjoy their peace, freedom and free trade. The capital city is called Melon City after the king. Thus the ending throws light on the selfish nature of the people and their belief in old customs. It also explains the title.

The chief of builders was the first one to be held guilty. He shifted the blame on the workmen. The workmen were surprised but did not lose their reasoning power. They told the king he had forgotten the fact that the bricks were made of the wrong size. Swayed by their rational argument, the masons were summoned. They trembled with fear, but shifted the blame on the architect who was responsible for planning and erecting the arch. The king ordered the architect to be hanged. The clever architect reminded the king that he had forgotten one small thing. He had made certain amendments to plans when the former had shown them to the latter. This clearly meant that he held the king responsible for the mishap. The king became very angry and lost” his capacity of clear judgement. He called it a tricky thing and sought the advice of the wisest man in the country. Thus each accused succeeded in shifting the blame on others.

The king ordered to build an arch across the major thoroughfare of the city as a symbol of triumph—a kind of victory monument. The workmen built it but it was too low. When the king rode under it, his crown struck against it and fell down.

The king ordered to construct an arch because the arch was a symbol of victory or triumph. He wanted the people to see the arch and understand about the kingdom that it is proud of its victory. He ordered that it is constructed at the entrance of the city, as whoever comes can see it before entering.

The king’s riding under low arch and losing his crown also creates humour. The way the accused appeal to the king and shift the blame on others is quite funny. The unstable behaviour of the king also creates humour. The self-defence of the architect is a masterpiece. He holds the king himself responsible for the disgrace as he had ‘made certain amendments’ to his original plan. The king’s anger and inability to act calmly create humour.

The chief of builders was field responsible for the disgrace and ordered to be hanged. The chief called it the workmen’s fault. The king ordered to have all the workmen hanged. The workmen looked surprised but they blamed the wrong size of bricks for it. This shows the king’s fickle mindedness.

In a state where the king was just and placid will not be secured. In the state depicted in this poem, it is the same case. The king was so foolish that he sentenced himself to death without any fault of his own. He didn’t have any confidence in the decisions he made and kept altering them. In such a state surely a right decision cannot be made on anything and no situation will be acted properly.

The architect reminded the king that he had made certain amendments to the original plans of the architect He suggested that it was the fault of the king himself. On hearing it, the king became so angry that he nearly lost his ability to act sensibly or calmly.

It shows the councillor’s sycophancy and the King’s capriciousness. The councillor, an expert in the art of flattery, checked the king from an absurd action, through an argument that appeared logical. The thoughtless king mused over it.

The Tale of Melon City Summary – It is a poem by Vikram Seth in which he mocks any government system.

The king sought a wise man’s counsel. He held the arch guilty and ordered it to be hanged. A councillor objected to it as it had touched the king’s head. The people became restless. They wanted to see someone hanging. Only the king’s head could fit. the noose. So he was hanged. It was now announced that the next man who passed the City Gate would choose the king. An idiot came. He suggested ‘A melon’. So melon was crowned the king. He was taken to the throne. He was called melon king.

Genre of "The Tale of the Melon City"

"The Tale of the Melon City" is a play written by Vikram Seth. It falls under the genre of both humorous and ironical.

Humorous Genre
The play is filled with humor and wit, making it a prime example of the humorous genre. It uses comedic elements to entertain the audience and evoke laughter. The characters, their actions, and the situations they find themselves in, all contribute to the humor in the play. For example, when the mayor's body is cut in half, the absurdity of the situation adds a comedic element.

Ironical Genre
"The Tale of the Melon City" also falls under the genre of irony. Irony is a literary device where the intended meaning of a situation is different from what is actually happening. In this play, irony is present in various forms.

1. Situational Irony:
- The mayor is supposed to be a respected figure in society, but his body is cut in half, which is highly ironic.
- The mayor's wife and the citizen who cut the body in half are initially upset and concerned for the mayor's well-being, but their actions result in his demise.

2. Verbal Irony:
- The dialogue between characters often includes sarcastic remarks and playful banter, adding a layer of irony to the play.
- For instance, when the mayor's wife suggests bringing a doctor, the citizen responds with a sarcastic remark, implying that it's too late for medical intervention.

3. Dramatic Irony:
- The audience is aware of the irony throughout the play, as they know the mayor is already dead while the characters remain unaware.

The combination of humor and irony in "The Tale of the Melon City" creates a unique blend of light-hearted entertainment with deeper underlying meanings. The play uses these genres to comment on societal issues and human nature in a satirical manner.

The poem is a severe indictment of the age-old custom of delivering justice by word of mouth of the kings. There was a time when the King’s word was considered divine and whatever he uttered was law. A just and placid king was expected to protect the innocent and punish the quality. However, the process of trial and the ever-changing judgement’s make a fun of the whole process of fair trials and considered awards. This is evident from the statements of the accused who try to save their lives by holding others responsible for the guilt. The King’s capriciousness and inability to see through the thin veil of their arguments make him an object of ridicule rather than a dispenser of divine justice. Hence, we agree hilly with the above statement.

It is their custom to choose the new ruler of their state. Whoever passed the City Gate first of all the next day, would choose the ruler of the state. This method of random choice excluded dynastic rule as well as conspiracies. The Ministers decided to observe it with proper formality.

The person who passed the City Gate next was to name the king. It happened to be an idiot who gave the standard answer “a melon” to every question. So the melon was crowned the king, carried to the throne and respectfully set down there. The people are not at all ashamed to have a melon as their king. They say that if the king rejoices in being a melon, that’s all right with them. They find no fault with him as long as he leaves them to enjoy their peace, freedom and free trade. The capital city is called Melon City after the king.

The correct answer is option 'A' because the idiot replied the way he did because he liked melons. Let's analyze this explanation further.

Evidence from the question:
- The question states that the idiot replied in a certain way, and we need to determine the reason behind his response.
- The options provided are related to different activities or preferences, such as liking melons, riding horses, knowing how to use a sword, and growing melons.

Explanation:
1. Introduction:
The question is asking about the reason behind the idiot's response. In order to determine this, we need to analyze the given options and choose the most appropriate one.

2. Analyzing the options:
a) Because he liked melons:
This option suggests that the idiot replied the way he did because he had a preference for melons. It implies that he may have expressed his liking for melons in his response.

b) Because he rode horses:
This option suggests that the idiot's response was influenced by his experience or involvement in horse riding. However, this option seems unrelated to the given context and does not provide a logical reason for his response.

c) Because he knew how to use a sword:
This option suggests that the idiot's response was based on his knowledge or skill in using a sword. Similar to option b, this choice seems unrelated to the context and does not provide a valid reason for his response.

d) Because he grew melons:
This option suggests that the idiot's response was influenced by his involvement in melon cultivation. However, like options b and c, this choice seems irrelevant to the given context and does not provide a logical reason for his response.

3. Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the given options, it can be concluded that the correct answer is option 'A' - because he liked melons. This option aligns with the question's context and provides a valid reason for the idiot's response.

The king wanted to hang someone because his crown had hit against the arch and fallen down. The king wanted to consult a wise man. The ministers brought a man to the king. He said that the real; culprit was the arch and must be hanged.

The chief of builders blamed the workmen for the issue at hand. Here's an explanation of this answer:

Introduction:
The chief of builders, who is in charge of overseeing the construction project, is assigning blame for a problem that has occurred. Let's analyze the options to understand why the chief of builders blamed the workmen.

Analysis of Options:

a) The public:
Blaming the public would not make sense in this context as the public is typically not involved in the construction process. The public may have certain expectations or demands, but they are not responsible for the actual construction work.

b) The architect:
While the architect plays a crucial role in designing the building, blaming them might not be justified unless there was a clear mistake or error in the design that directly caused the problem. However, the question does not provide any information about such a mistake, so blaming the architect seems unlikely.

c) The masons:
The masons are skilled workers who specialize in building structures with bricks, stones, or concrete blocks. While they have an important role in the construction process, blaming them alone would not be reasonable unless there was evidence of their negligence or incompetence. However, the question does not provide any such information.

d) The workmen:
The term "workmen" is a general term that refers to all the laborers and workers involved in the construction project. This includes not only the masons but also other workers like carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. Blaming the workmen suggests that the chief of builders believes that the problem occurred due to the collective actions or lack of skills of the workmen.

Conclusion:
Based on the options provided, the chief of builders blamed the workmen for the issue at hand. While the question does not provide specific details about the problem, it can be inferred that the chief of builders believes that the workmen are responsible for the problem due to their actions or lack of skills. However, it's important to note that without further context or information, it is difficult to determine the exact reason for the blame.

The person who passed the City Gate next was to name the king. It happened to be an idiot who gave the standard answer “a melon” to every question. So the melon was crowned the king, carried to the throne and respectfully set down there.

The king ordered to construct an arch because the arch was a symbol of victory or triumph. He wanted the people to see the arch and understand about the kingdom that it is proud of its victory. He ordered that it is constructed at the entrance of the city, as whoever comes can see it before entering.

The king was fair and gentle. He seemed to be interested in the welfare of the masses. So he proclaimed that an arch should be constructed which should extend across the major thoroughfare. He hoped that it would improve people’s mind on looking at it.

The just and placid king got an arch built to ‘edify’ spectators. The king’s riding under low arch and losing his crown also creates humour. The way the accused appeal to the king and shift the blame on others is quite funny. The unstable behaviour of the king also creates humour. The self-defence of the architect is a masterpiece. He holds the king himself responsible for the disgrace as he had ‘made certain amendments’ to his original plan. The king’s anger and inability to act calmly create humour.

The king wants to keep the public in good humour. He is quite observant and judges the mood of the masses correctly. His lack of foresight proves to be his doom. The height of the noose fits only his neck. He foolishly becomes a victim of his own order. He wants to prevent a public revolt but pays for the public amusement with his blood. Thus he is a short-sighted crank with muddled reasoning power.

The given options suggest that the crowd of the state can be characterized as either of no good, supportive of their King, or indifferent to who was on the throne. The correct answer is option 'D', indicating that both options (A) and (C) are true. Let's discuss each option in detail to understand why this conclusion can be drawn.

a) They were of no good:
This option suggests that the crowd was not beneficial or helpful. This impression could be formed based on their actions or behavior during the events described in the passage. For example, if the crowd remained passive or did not take any positive action to support their King or the state, it could be interpreted as being of no good.

c) They were indifferent who was on the throne:
This option implies that the crowd did not show any particular interest or concern about who held the position of power. This indifference could indicate that they were not actively involved in political matters or did not have a strong preference for a specific ruler. Their lack of engagement in political affairs might suggest that they were more focused on their own lives or had little faith in the impact of political leadership on their well-being.

Considering both options together:
If we combine the impressions of being of no good and indifferent towards who was on the throne, it suggests that the crowd did not actively support or oppose the King or any other ruler. They may not have been actively involved in political activities or may have lacked a strong sense of loyalty towards their leaders. This could indicate a sense of apathy or disillusionment among the crowd regarding the political system or their rulers.

In summary, the impression formed of the crowd of the state is that they were neither supportive nor actively opposed to the King or any other ruler. They may have been perceived as of no good due to their lack of beneficial actions or involvement in political affairs. Additionally, their indifference towards who held power reflects a possible sense of apathy or disillusionment. Therefore, both options (A) and (C) are correct, leading to the conclusion that option 'D' is the correct answer.

The State where the king was just and placid’ seems to be a backward region full of ignorant fools and ruled by a whimsical king. The king considers himself to be the custodian of people and gets an arch erected for their spiritual upliftment. The king’s word is a command and unwritten law. The whole process of changing judgement on the appeals of the victims appears as a mock-trial. The Ministers and Councillors seems to be selfish. They advise the king to serve their own ends, though they appear to flatter the king and seem dedicated to the state. The common people are uneducated and ignorant fools. They need mental as well as spiritual upliftment. They are fun loving. In their quest for fun, they can cross all limits. If deprived of fun, the unruly mob can rebel against the crown. They do not bother whether the king is a man or a melon. They want there personal freedom, free business and peaceful lives.