Test: English Language Test - 2 - Bank Exams MCQ

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Indian-American community in the U.S. has urged the Trump administration to “fully support” India’s decision to revoke the constitutional provision that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir and to continue to exert pressure on Pakistan to end its support to cross-border terrorism. (A) The Indian government (1) split Article 370 and (2) moved a (3) separate bill to (4) abolished the state into two union territories of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Article 370 granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its own flag and constitution, among other rights.

“We urge the US to fully support India’s internal sovereign decisions on Kashmir and to continue to exert pressure on Pakistan to end its support of cross-border terrorism, so the Kashmir conflict can be resolved once and for all”, Samir Kalra, managing director of Hindu-American Foundation (HAF), said.

Mr. Kalra said that the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, which were only intended as temporary provisions, is an important step in bringing about a solution to the Kashmir issue. “It will help better ________ (B) __________ the residents of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh into the rest of India and apply one set of equal laws across the country, Mr. Kalra said. Moreover, it will help create conditions for the full rehabilitation and resettlement of the Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley, he added.

Krishna Reddy, President of Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP), said that this is Narendra Modi government’s best gift to the nation on the occasion of 73rd Independence Day of India. (C) It is a historic day as Modi government could deliver a long-awaited decision of scrapping article 370 and corrected the historic blunder made by the Nehru government, Reddy said. According to him, OFBJP and other Indian diaspora organisations are organising celebratory events in the coming next two weeks.

Welcoming the decision, the World Hindu Council of America said that with the removal of this special status, the regions of Jammu,Kashmir and Ladakh will finally be fully integrated with the rest of India, allowing effective and sustainable development in these regions.

We hope that people from all over India, will join the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh in celebrating this momentous occasion, it said. New York-based attorney Ravi Batra said that this action must deliver enhanced peace and security to Jammu and Kashmir, as well as between India and Pakistan.

It’s time for the Sub-Continent to celebrate freedom - not only from colonialism - but terror too. The United States, as a friend of the Sub-Continent, wants peace and prosperity to reign, not fear and terror, Batra said.

Indian-American Puneet Ahluwalia said that it should not come as a surprise, as revocation of 35A and 370 has always been part of BJP’s manifesto.

There are forces in Kashmir and neighbouring Pakistani establishment who would likely want this bold internal initiative to fail. This is a sensitive action which can either turn into a nightmare or paradise for the Kashmiri community, he said.

The community of Kashmiri Pandits in the US too rejoiced the Indian government’s move, saying that this paves the way for their return to the homeland in the near future. The move by the Indian government will also improve the security situation with respect to cross border terrorism and bring peace, harmony and stability in Jammu-Kashmir, now a new Union Territory of India, said Vijay Sazawal from the Indo-American Kashmir Forum.

Indo-European Kashmir Forum (IEKF) based in London and Geneva, and the Indo-Canadian Kashmir Forum (ICKF) based in Ottawa, also came out in support of the government’s decision, saying that finally Kashmiri minorities, particularly the Kashmiri Pandits, will receive justice and be able to reclaim their ancestral lands from where they were driven out in 1989-1990, he said.

Jeevan Zutshi from Kashmir Task Force said, “not only the Kashmir problem has been solved with this historic abrogation of article 370 but it also vindicates all Kashmiris, of all faiths, some of whom lost their lives due to turbulence and some, like Kashmiri Pandits, who had lost their roots completely.”

The community members hoped that these constitutional amendments will enable them to get justice, reverse ethnic cleansing and (D)reclaim their ancestral homeland. These moves by the Indian government will also improve the security situation with respect to cross-border terrorism and bring peace, harmony and stability in Jammu and Kashmir, they said.

Q. Which of the following word given in the options should come at the place marked (B) in the above article to make it grammatically correct and meaningful?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Indian-American community in the U.S. has urged the Trump administration to “fully support” India’s decision to revoke the constitutional provision that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir and to continue to exert pressure on Pakistan to end its support to cross-border terrorism. (A) The Indian government (1) split Article 370 and (2) moved a (3) separate bill to (4) abolished the state into two union territories of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Article 370 granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its own flag and constitution, among other rights.

“We urge the US to fully support India’s internal sovereign decisions on Kashmir and to continue to exert pressure on Pakistan to end its support of cross-border terrorism, so the Kashmir conflict can be resolved once and for all”, Samir Kalra, managing director of Hindu-American Foundation (HAF), said.

Mr. Kalra said that the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, which were only intended as temporary provisions, is an important step in bringing about a solution to the Kashmir issue. “It will help better ________ (B) __________ the residents of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh into the rest of India and apply one set of equal laws across the country, Mr. Kalra said. Moreover, it will help create conditions for the full rehabilitation and resettlement of the Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley, he added.

Krishna Reddy, President of Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP), said that this is Narendra Modi government’s best gift to the nation on the occasion of 73rd Independence Day of India. (C) It is a historic day as Modi government could deliver a long-awaited decision of scrapping article 370 and corrected the historic blunder made by the Nehru government, Reddy said. According to him, OFBJP and other Indian diaspora organisations are organising celebratory events in the coming next two weeks.

Welcoming the decision, the World Hindu Council of America said that with the removal of this special status, the regions of Jammu,Kashmir and Ladakh will finally be fully integrated with the rest of India, allowing effective and sustainable development in these regions.

We hope that people from all over India, will join the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh in celebrating this momentous occasion, it said. New York-based attorney Ravi Batra said that this action must deliver enhanced peace and security to Jammu and Kashmir, as well as between India and Pakistan.

It’s time for the Sub-Continent to celebrate freedom - not only from colonialism - but terror too. The United States, as a friend of the Sub-Continent, wants peace and prosperity to reign, not fear and terror, Batra said.

Indian-American Puneet Ahluwalia said that it should not come as a surprise, as revocation of 35A and 370 has always been part of BJP’s manifesto.

There are forces in Kashmir and neighbouring Pakistani establishment who would likely want this bold internal initiative to fail. This is a sensitive action which can either turn into a nightmare or paradise for the Kashmiri community, he said.

The community of Kashmiri Pandits in the US too rejoiced the Indian government’s move, saying that this paves the way for their return to the homeland in the near future. The move by the Indian government will also improve the security situation with respect to cross border terrorism and bring peace, harmony and stability in Jammu-Kashmir, now a new Union Territory of India, said Vijay Sazawal from the Indo-American Kashmir Forum.

Indo-European Kashmir Forum (IEKF) based in London and Geneva, and the Indo-Canadian Kashmir Forum (ICKF) based in Ottawa, also came out in support of the government’s decision, saying that finally Kashmiri minorities, particularly the Kashmiri Pandits, will receive justice and be able to reclaim their ancestral lands from where they were driven out in 1989-1990, he said.

Jeevan Zutshi from Kashmir Task Force said, “not only the Kashmir problem has been solved with this historic abrogation of article 370 but it also vindicates all Kashmiris, of all faiths, some of whom lost their lives due to turbulence and some, like Kashmiri Pandits, who had lost their roots completely.”

The community members hoped that these constitutional amendments will enable them to get justice, reverse ethnic cleansing and (D)reclaim their ancestral homeland. These moves by the Indian government will also improve the security situation with respect to cross-border terrorism and bring peace, harmony and stability in Jammu and Kashmir, they said.

Q. What can be a suitable title for the passage?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Para 1- Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and (A) shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories. The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

Para 2- The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954, (B) abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State

Para 3- If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever have recommended its own demotion in status.

Para 4- True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. ________ (C) _________ integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status could have unintended and dangerous consequences.

Q. Choose the option which is most similar to the word marked (A) in the passage.

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Para 1- Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and (A) shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories. The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

Para 2- The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954, (B) abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State

Para 3- If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever have recommended its own demotion in status.

Para 4- True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. ________ (C) _________ integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status could have unintended and dangerous consequences.

Q. Which of the following is/are correct according to the passage?

I) In 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President™s power to ˜modify™ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K.      

II) The BJP has delivered on a promise it has long made, by annulling the special status that Jammu and Kashmirhad enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures.

III) In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories through recommendations from the State.

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Para 1- Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and (A) shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories. The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

Para 2- The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954, (B) abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State

Para 3- If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever have recommended its own demotion in status.

Para 4- True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. ________ (C) _________ integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status could have unintended and dangerous consequences.

Q. Which of the following phrases should fill the blank in (C) to make it contextually correct and meaningful?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Para 1- Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and (A) shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories. The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

Para 2- The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954, (B) abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State

Para 3- If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever have recommended its own demotion in status.

Para 4- True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. ________ (C) _________ integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status could have unintended and dangerous consequences.

Q. Choose the option which is most opposite to the word marked (B) in the passage.

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Para 1- Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and (A) shunning political process entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories. The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration with the rest of the country.

Para 2- The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954, (B) abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State

Para 3- If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever have recommended its own demotion in status.

Para 4- True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. ________ (C) _________ integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status could have unintended and dangerous consequences.

Q. What can be a suitable title for the passage?

Directions: In each of the questions given below, a sentence is given, divided into parts. Find the part that contains the error and mark it as your answer. If the sentence is grammatically correct, mark option (E).

Q. The U.S. and NATO formally concluded their combat mission in 2014, but the American and allied troops continue to train and building the Afghan military.

Directions: In each of the questions given below, a sentence is given, divided into parts. Find the part that contains the error and mark it as your answer. If the sentence is grammatically correct, mark option (E).

Q. It's like no matter how much us citizens do, we cannot change the government, she added, referring to the city's unelected pro-Beijing leaders.

Directions: In each of the questions given below, a sentence is given, divided into parts. Find the part that contains the error and mark it as your answer. If the sentence is grammatically correct, mark option (E).

Q. Hong Kong's protests constitute the most significant popular revolt in decades, directly challenging Beijing's rule as well as channeling rage at both the local leaders and police.

Directions: In the questions given below a sentence has been broken down into four fragments labeled (A) (B) (C) (D)and arranged and not necessarily in the same order. You have to find the correct order of the arrangement from the options given below. In case, the sentence is correct in its original form, please select (E) as your answer.

Q. While investment in EWS has shown evidence to save lives and help protect property, (A)/ most preventive measures focus on critical infrastructure to prevent disasters, (B)/ construction of shelters and protecting environmental buffers (C)/ such as flood-control systems, strengthening building codes, (D)/

Directipons: In the questions given below a sentence has been broken down into four fragments labeled (A) (B) (C) (D)and arranged and not necessarily in the same order. You have to find the correct order of the arrangement from the options given below. In case, the sentence is correct in its original form, please select (E) as your answer.

Q. to manage food and fibre security and biodiversity with urbanisation (A)/ to balance the portfolio when tradeoffs may be needed (B)/ afforestation and reforestation efforts should provide pathways (C)/ and other economic development goals (D)/

Directions: In the questions given below a sentence has been broken down into four fragments labeled (A) (B) (C) (D)and arranged and not necessarily in the same order. You have to find the correct order of the arrangement from the options given below. In case, the sentence is correct in its original form, please select (E) as your answer.

Q. when it comes to implementing Natural Climate Solutions on agricultural land, (A)/ India needs to consider the growing agricultural vulnerabilities (B)/ with multiple stressors from global warming, (C)/ monsoon extremes, groundwater depletion, and struggles with crop choices (D)/

Directions: In the questions given below a sentence has been broken down into four fragments labeled (A) (B) (C) (D)and arranged and not necessarily in the same order. You have to find the correct order of the arrangement from the options given below. In case, the sentence is correct in its original form, please select (E) as your answer.

Q. had been implemented in Samoa at the time of impact (A)/ if efficient and strong early warning services (B)/ caused by Cyclone Evan could have been avoided (C)/ we estimate that 81.45 per cent of the all the losses and damages (D)/

Directions: In the questions given below a sentence has been broken down into four fragments labeled (A) (B) (C) (D)and arranged and not necessarily in the same order. You have to find the correct order of the arrangement from the options given below. In case, the sentence is correct in its original form, please select (E) as your answer.

Q. with its growing population and demand for food including meat (A)/ development and careful management of such a broad portfolio is critical particularly for a country like India, (B)/ and fish products due to increasing income levels (C)/ which must always balance its commitment to the Paris Agreement (D)/

Directions: In each of the questions below, a sentence is given with two blanks that indicate that some parts are missing. Identify the correct pair of words that fit in the sentence to make it grammatically and contextually correct.

Q. Her name was Princess Augusta Tarakanova, and she _______ most of her life in solitude as a nun, _______ to Moscow™s St. John™s Convent on Catherine™s orders.

Directions: In each of the questions below, a sentence is given with two blanks that indicate that some parts are missing. Identify the correct pair of words that fit in the sentence to make it grammatically and contextually correct.

Q. I am relieved that my distaste _______ cruciferous vegetables is not my fault”I did not get to go gene shopping before I was _______.