Reading Comprehension Passage: 51 | 100 RC`s for Government Exams Preparation - Bank Exams PDF Download

The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides.
The passage clearly states that the Supreme Court acknowledges the shortage of water in both states and wanted them to share their problems and mitigate them by sharing river water.
Hence, option B is correct.

The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall.
Go through the first few sentences of the paragraph, it can be clearly inferred that the violence is over the Cauvery river water. Options A and B can be eliminated as they mention not the actual issue for violence, but what it's turning out to be.
Hence, option C is correct.

Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests.
It can be easily inferred from the passage that some chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests have perpetuated acts of violence in both states.
Hence, option A is correct.

But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other.
The passage clearly states that political parties and some media houses especially the regional television channels have portrayed the issue in a way that pits the people of one state against those of the other.
Hence, option D is correct.

Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
It can be easily inferred from the passage that all statements except the second one are true.
Hence, option B is correct.