CLAT Practice Test- 34 - CLAT MCQ

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.

The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road near Devon Avenue. Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash register, and ordered his dinner. The history book, which he propped against the catsup and the glass sugar bowl, had been used by others before him. While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in November of the same year, and all the powers engaged in the war on either side sent plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and important assembly ever convoked to discuss and determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria, Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma, thought he was through eating and tried to take his plate away. He stopped her. A party of four, two men and two women, came into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took possession of the centre table nearest Lymie. They laughed more than there seemed any occasion for, while they were deciding between soup and shrimp cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was the women's voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch which caused Lymie to skim over two whole pages without knowing what was on them. Fortunately he realised this and went back. But before Lymie got halfway through them, a coat that he recognised as his father's was hung on the hook next to his chair. Lymie closed the book and said, "I didn't think you were coming." Time is probably no more unkind to sporting characters than it is to other people, but physical decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more noticeable. Mr. Peters' hair was turning grey and his scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he used to. His colour was poor, and the flower had disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an American Legion button. Apparently he himself was not aware that there had been any change. He straightened his tie self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu, he gestured with it so that the two women at the next table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth finger of his right hand.

Q. Which of the following traits are exhibited by 'party of four' as described in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

This passage is adapted from William Maxwell, The Folded Leaf. ©1959 by William Maxwell. Originally published in 1945.

The Alcazar Restaurant was on Sheridan Road near Devon Avenue. Lymie sat down at the second table from the cash register, and ordered his dinner. The history book, which he propped against the catsup and the glass sugar bowl, had been used by others before him. While Lymie read about the Peace of Paris, signed on the thirtieth of May, 1814, between France and the Allied powers, his right hand managed again and again to bring food up to his mouth. Sometimes he chewed, sometimes he swallowed whole the food that he had no idea he was eating. The Congress of Vienna met, with some allowance for delays, early in November of the same year, and all the powers engaged in the war on either side sent plenipotentiaries. It was by far the most splendid and important assembly ever convoked to discuss and determine the affairs of Europe. The Emperor of Russia, the King of Prussia, the Kings of Bavaria, Denmark, and Wurttemberg, all were present in person at the court of the Emperor Francis I in the Austrian capital. When Lymie put down his fork and began to count them off, one by one, on the fingers of his left hand, the waitress, whose name was Irma, thought he was through eating and tried to take his plate away. He stopped her. A party of four, two men and two women, came into the restaurant, all talking at once, and took possession of the centre table nearest Lymie. They laughed more than there seemed any occasion for, while they were deciding between soup and shrimp cocktail, and their laughter was too loud. But it was the women's voices, the terrible not quite sober pitch which caused Lymie to skim over two whole pages without knowing what was on them. Fortunately he realised this and went back. But before Lymie got halfway through them, a coat that he recognised as his father's was hung on the hook next to his chair. Lymie closed the book and said, "I didn't think you were coming." Time is probably no more unkind to sporting characters than it is to other people, but physical decay unsustained by respectability is somehow more noticeable. Mr. Peters' hair was turning grey and his scalp showed through on top. He had lost weight also; he no longer filled out his clothes the way he used to. His colour was poor, and the flower had disappeared from his buttonhole. In its place was an American Legion button. Apparently he himself was not aware that there had been any change. He straightened his tie self-consciously and when Irma handed him a menu, he gestured with it so that the two women at the next table would notice the diamond ring on the fourth finger of his right hand.

Q. Why does the waitress Irma draw the impression that Lymie had finished with his food?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

I decided at 10 years of age that I was going to be a teacher, because I wanted superpowers. There! I've said it. It's true. When I was in primary school I could clearly see that some of my teachers had extraordinary powers. My classmates went about their day with joyful abandon. Not me. I was the quietly observant one, noticing things.

There was our English-language teacher in fifth grade who could magically transport us to different worlds every day, simply by telling us stories and reading to us from books we would otherwise never pick up. This was our secret, because fifth graders were considered too old to have stories read out to them.

Then there was the founder–principal of the school, a teacher as well, who knew everything about every child, knew not just their parents but even their grandparents. You couldn't escape her superpowered laser-like eyes that could see right into you—through flesh, bones and all. That was a scary superpower. Her hawk-eyed scrutiny often left us feeling like there was no escape.

But, our class teacher in fourth standard could see the invisible. I was one of those who remained invisible, being rather quiet and shy as a child. Yet my teacher would notice me, even when I was unnoticeable. The unspoken message in her superpowered eyes told me: "I see you, I know you, I understand you." She knew, without needing to be told, the days I felt sad and lost and needed that extra pat. Being a dreamer, I found school a bit trying at times. She clearly had a superpower if, after four decades, I can still vividly remember her lessons about the great masters of art, expanding our horizons and kindling, at least in me, a lifelong interest in the subject. She did this even though her area of specialization wasn't art; it was geography. I don't remember much of the geography now, but I do remember how she made me feel. The lessons went beyond the textbook. As I learnt from her, the role of a primary school educator is to teach children, not subjects.

I knew I wanted to be such a teacher, one of those all-seeing ones with superpowers that made children feel safe and valued.

What seems amazing to me is that all those extraordinary men and women went about their business, calmly creating daily magic in their ordinary classrooms. No one noticed, no one gave them medals for bravery or Nobel prizes for creativity, although they were being the most creative anyone could be, in shaping and moulding young human beings.

Q. According to the passage, what does the author find amazing about the extraordinary teachers?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

I decided at 10 years of age that I was going to be a teacher, because I wanted superpowers. There! I've said it. It's true. When I was in primary school I could clearly see that some of my teachers had extraordinary powers. My classmates went about their day with joyful abandon. Not me. I was the quietly observant one, noticing things.

There was our English-language teacher in fifth grade who could magically transport us to different worlds every day, simply by telling us stories and reading to us from books we would otherwise never pick up. This was our secret, because fifth graders were considered too old to have stories read out to them.

Then there was the founder–principal of the school, a teacher as well, who knew everything about every child, knew not just their parents but even their grandparents. You couldn't escape her superpowered laser-like eyes that could see right into you—through flesh, bones and all. That was a scary superpower. Her hawk-eyed scrutiny often left us feeling like there was no escape.

But, our class teacher in fourth standard could see the invisible. I was one of those who remained invisible, being rather quiet and shy as a child. Yet my teacher would notice me, even when I was unnoticeable. The unspoken message in her superpowered eyes told me: "I see you, I know you, I understand you." She knew, without needing to be told, the days I felt sad and lost and needed that extra pat. Being a dreamer, I found school a bit trying at times. She clearly had a superpower if, after four decades, I can still vividly remember her lessons about the great masters of art, expanding our horizons and kindling, at least in me, a lifelong interest in the subject. She did this even though her area of specialization wasn't art; it was geography. I don't remember much of the geography now, but I do remember how she made me feel. The lessons went beyond the textbook. As I learnt from her, the role of a primary school educator is to teach children, not subjects.

I knew I wanted to be such a teacher, one of those all-seeing ones with superpowers that made children feel safe and valued.

What seems amazing to me is that all those extraordinary men and women went about their business, calmly creating daily magic in their ordinary classrooms. No one noticed, no one gave them medals for bravery or Nobel prizes for creativity, although they were being the most creative anyone could be, in shaping and moulding young human beings.

Q. According to the passage, what does the author find amazing about the extraordinary teachers?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

I decided at 10 years of age that I was going to be a teacher, because I wanted superpowers. There! I've said it. It's true. When I was in primary school I could clearly see that some of my teachers had extraordinary powers. My classmates went about their day with joyful abandon. Not me. I was the quietly observant one, noticing things.

There was our English-language teacher in fifth grade who could magically transport us to different worlds every day, simply by telling us stories and reading to us from books we would otherwise never pick up. This was our secret, because fifth graders were considered too old to have stories read out to them.

Then there was the founder–principal of the school, a teacher as well, who knew everything about every child, knew not just their parents but even their grandparents. You couldn't escape her superpowered laser-like eyes that could see right into you—through flesh, bones and all. That was a scary superpower. Her hawk-eyed scrutiny often left us feeling like there was no escape.

But, our class teacher in fourth standard could see the invisible. I was one of those who remained invisible, being rather quiet and shy as a child. Yet my teacher would notice me, even when I was unnoticeable. The unspoken message in her superpowered eyes told me: "I see you, I know you, I understand you." She knew, without needing to be told, the days I felt sad and lost and needed that extra pat. Being a dreamer, I found school a bit trying at times. She clearly had a superpower if, after four decades, I can still vividly remember her lessons about the great masters of art, expanding our horizons and kindling, at least in me, a lifelong interest in the subject. She did this even though her area of specialization wasn't art; it was geography. I don't remember much of the geography now, but I do remember how she made me feel. The lessons went beyond the textbook. As I learnt from her, the role of a primary school educator is to teach children, not subjects.

I knew I wanted to be such a teacher, one of those all-seeing ones with superpowers that made children feel safe and valued.

What seems amazing to me is that all those extraordinary men and women went about their business, calmly creating daily magic in their ordinary classrooms. No one noticed, no one gave them medals for bravery or Nobel prizes for creativity, although they were being the most creative anyone could be, in shaping and moulding young human beings.

Q. What does the phrase 'expanding our horizons' as used in the passage mean?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

I decided at 10 years of age that I was going to be a teacher, because I wanted superpowers. There! I've said it. It's true. When I was in primary school I could clearly see that some of my teachers had extraordinary powers. My classmates went about their day with joyful abandon. Not me. I was the quietly observant one, noticing things.

There was our English-language teacher in fifth grade who could magically transport us to different worlds every day, simply by telling us stories and reading to us from books we would otherwise never pick up. This was our secret, because fifth graders were considered too old to have stories read out to them.

Then there was the founder–principal of the school, a teacher as well, who knew everything about every child, knew not just their parents but even their grandparents. You couldn't escape her superpowered laser-like eyes that could see right into you—through flesh, bones and all. That was a scary superpower. Her hawk-eyed scrutiny often left us feeling like there was no escape.

But, our class teacher in fourth standard could see the invisible. I was one of those who remained invisible, being rather quiet and shy as a child. Yet my teacher would notice me, even when I was unnoticeable. The unspoken message in her superpowered eyes told me: "I see you, I know you, I understand you." She knew, without needing to be told, the days I felt sad and lost and needed that extra pat. Being a dreamer, I found school a bit trying at times. She clearly had a superpower if, after four decades, I can still vividly remember her lessons about the great masters of art, expanding our horizons and kindling, at least in me, a lifelong interest in the subject. She did this even though her area of specialization wasn't art; it was geography. I don't remember much of the geography now, but I do remember how she made me feel. The lessons went beyond the textbook. As I learnt from her, the role of a primary school educator is to teach children, not subjects.

I knew I wanted to be such a teacher, one of those all-seeing ones with superpowers that made children feel safe and valued.

What seems amazing to me is that all those extraordinary men and women went about their business, calmly creating daily magic in their ordinary classrooms. No one noticed, no one gave them medals for bravery or Nobel prizes for creativity, although they were being the most creative anyone could be, in shaping and moulding young human beings.

Q. What, according to the author, was scary about the founder-principal?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

I decided at 10 years of age that I was going to be a teacher, because I wanted superpowers. There! I've said it. It's true. When I was in primary school I could clearly see that some of my teachers had extraordinary powers. My classmates went about their day with joyful abandon. Not me. I was the quietly observant one, noticing things.

There was our English-language teacher in fifth grade who could magically transport us to different worlds every day, simply by telling us stories and reading to us from books we would otherwise never pick up. This was our secret, because fifth graders were considered too old to have stories read out to them.

Then there was the founder–principal of the school, a teacher as well, who knew everything about every child, knew not just their parents but even their grandparents. You couldn't escape her superpowered laser-like eyes that could see right into you—through flesh, bones and all. That was a scary superpower. Her hawk-eyed scrutiny often left us feeling like there was no escape.

But, our class teacher in fourth standard could see the invisible. I was one of those who remained invisible, being rather quiet and shy as a child. Yet my teacher would notice me, even when I was unnoticeable. The unspoken message in her superpowered eyes told me: "I see you, I know you, I understand you." She knew, without needing to be told, the days I felt sad and lost and needed that extra pat. Being a dreamer, I found school a bit trying at times. She clearly had a superpower if, after four decades, I can still vividly remember her lessons about the great masters of art, expanding our horizons and kindling, at least in me, a lifelong interest in the subject. She did this even though her area of specialization wasn't art; it was geography. I don't remember much of the geography now, but I do remember how she made me feel. The lessons went beyond the textbook. As I learnt from her, the role of a primary school educator is to teach children, not subjects.

I knew I wanted to be such a teacher, one of those all-seeing ones with superpowers that made children feel safe and valued.

What seems amazing to me is that all those extraordinary men and women went about their business, calmly creating daily magic in their ordinary classrooms. No one noticed, no one gave them medals for bravery or Nobel prizes for creativity, although they were being the most creative anyone could be, in shaping and moulding young human beings.

Q. Why did the author believe that by becoming a teacher the author would receive superpowers?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.

This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.

Q. What can be inferred from the passage about the request for the Emergency proclamation?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.

This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.

Q. Why does the author state that the late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.

This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.

Q. What does the word 'propriety' as used in the passage mean?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.

This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.

Q. According to the passage, why did Balachandran advise the President that Gandhi's request for a proclamation of Emergency was impermissible?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.

This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.

Q. What reason for declaring Emergency does Indira Gandhi provide in her letter to President Ahmed marked 'Top Secret'?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

"Did you continue firing?"

"Yes," replied the general.

There was an audible gasp that echoed through this crowded room in response to that single word. His Lordship waited for silence to be restored, sitting with eyes lowered, hands clasped tightly on the long table that separated the Committee from everyone else. The folds of his black robe pinched against the table's edge as he hunched forward, leaning heavily on his elbows, asking in a voice strained thin by incredulity:

"If the crowd was going to disperse, why did you not stop firing?"

"I thought it my duty to go on firing until it dispersed. If I fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little I should be wrong in firing at all."

"What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assembly to leave the Bagh they would not have done so without the necessity of your firing, continued firing for a length of time?"

"Yes, I think it is quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing."

"Why did you not adopt that course" His Lordship asked, shaking his head, more in wonder than horror, as he asked the question.

"I could not disperse them for some time," the General answered, speaking slowly, sounding distracted as he stared over the heads of the judges, "then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool."

A wave of startled comment greeted this remark, and the clamour became so loud that His Lordship was obliged to rap his gavel before continuing his interrogation.

"You know that the casualties were something between four hundred and five hundred."

"Yes I have seen it in the papers. I divided all my rounds by five--" He paused and touched his fingertips to his lips, staring vacantly at the ceiling, mumbling, "I am in doubt whether by five or six--to arrive at the number."

"I understood that the shooting that took place was individual shooting, and it was not volley shooting?"

"No, there was no volley shooting."

"The crowd was very dense?"

"It was very dense."

"It was unlikely that a man shooting into the crowd will miss?"

"No, according to the circumstances of the case," the General replied, shaking his head, sounding bewildered. "They were running, and I noticed only a certain number of men were hit. In the centre of the section, the crowd was very dense and therefore if a man directed his fire well he should not miss."

Q. What can be inferred from the passage about the general regarding his decision to fire at the crowd?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

"Did you continue firing?"

"Yes," replied the general.

There was an audible gasp that echoed through this crowded room in response to that single word. His Lordship waited for silence to be restored, sitting with eyes lowered, hands clasped tightly on the long table that separated the Committee from everyone else. The folds of his black robe pinched against the table's edge as he hunched forward, leaning heavily on his elbows, asking in a voice strained thin by incredulity:

"If the crowd was going to disperse, why did you not stop firing?"

"I thought it my duty to go on firing until it dispersed. If I fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little I should be wrong in firing at all."

"What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assembly to leave the Bagh they would not have done so without the necessity of your firing, continued firing for a length of time?"

"Yes, I think it is quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing."

"Why did you not adopt that course" His Lordship asked, shaking his head, more in wonder than horror, as he asked the question.

"I could not disperse them for some time," the General answered, speaking slowly, sounding distracted as he stared over the heads of the judges, "then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool."

A wave of startled comment greeted this remark, and the clamour became so loud that His Lordship was obliged to rap his gavel before continuing his interrogation.

"You know that the casualties were something between four hundred and five hundred."

"Yes I have seen it in the papers. I divided all my rounds by five--" He paused and touched his fingertips to his lips, staring vacantly at the ceiling, mumbling, "I am in doubt whether by five or six--to arrive at the number."

"I understood that the shooting that took place was individual shooting, and it was not volley shooting?"

"No, there was no volley shooting."

"The crowd was very dense?"

"It was very dense."

"It was unlikely that a man shooting into the crowd will miss?"

"No, according to the circumstances of the case," the General replied, shaking his head, sounding bewildered. "They were running, and I noticed only a certain number of men were hit. In the centre of the section, the crowd was very dense and therefore if a man directed his fire well he should not miss."

Q. Why would the general have resorted to individual firing over volley firing?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

"Did you continue firing?"

"Yes," replied the general.

There was an audible gasp that echoed through this crowded room in response to that single word. His Lordship waited for silence to be restored, sitting with eyes lowered, hands clasped tightly on the long table that separated the Committee from everyone else. The folds of his black robe pinched against the table's edge as he hunched forward, leaning heavily on his elbows, asking in a voice strained thin by incredulity:

"If the crowd was going to disperse, why did you not stop firing?"

"I thought it my duty to go on firing until it dispersed. If I fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little I should be wrong in firing at all."

"What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assembly to leave the Bagh they would not have done so without the necessity of your firing, continued firing for a length of time?"

"Yes, I think it is quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing."

"Why did you not adopt that course" His Lordship asked, shaking his head, more in wonder than horror, as he asked the question.

"I could not disperse them for some time," the General answered, speaking slowly, sounding distracted as he stared over the heads of the judges, "then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool."

A wave of startled comment greeted this remark, and the clamour became so loud that His Lordship was obliged to rap his gavel before continuing his interrogation.

"You know that the casualties were something between four hundred and five hundred."

"Yes I have seen it in the papers. I divided all my rounds by five--" He paused and touched his fingertips to his lips, staring vacantly at the ceiling, mumbling, "I am in doubt whether by five or six--to arrive at the number."

"I understood that the shooting that took place was individual shooting, and it was not volley shooting?"

"No, there was no volley shooting."

"The crowd was very dense?"

"It was very dense."

"It was unlikely that a man shooting into the crowd will miss?"

"No, according to the circumstances of the case," the General replied, shaking his head, sounding bewildered. "They were running, and I noticed only a certain number of men were hit. In the centre of the section, the crowd was very dense and therefore if a man directed his fire well he should not miss."

Q. What does the word 'incredulity' as used in the passage mean?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

"Did you continue firing?"

"Yes," replied the general.

There was an audible gasp that echoed through this crowded room in response to that single word. His Lordship waited for silence to be restored, sitting with eyes lowered, hands clasped tightly on the long table that separated the Committee from everyone else. The folds of his black robe pinched against the table's edge as he hunched forward, leaning heavily on his elbows, asking in a voice strained thin by incredulity:

"If the crowd was going to disperse, why did you not stop firing?"

"I thought it my duty to go on firing until it dispersed. If I fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little I should be wrong in firing at all."

"What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assembly to leave the Bagh they would not have done so without the necessity of your firing, continued firing for a length of time?"

"Yes, I think it is quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing."

"Why did you not adopt that course" His Lordship asked, shaking his head, more in wonder than horror, as he asked the question.

"I could not disperse them for some time," the General answered, speaking slowly, sounding distracted as he stared over the heads of the judges, "then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool."

A wave of startled comment greeted this remark, and the clamour became so loud that His Lordship was obliged to rap his gavel before continuing his interrogation.

"You know that the casualties were something between four hundred and five hundred."

"Yes I have seen it in the papers. I divided all my rounds by five--" He paused and touched his fingertips to his lips, staring vacantly at the ceiling, mumbling, "I am in doubt whether by five or six--to arrive at the number."

"I understood that the shooting that took place was individual shooting, and it was not volley shooting?"

"No, there was no volley shooting."

"The crowd was very dense?"

"It was very dense."

"It was unlikely that a man shooting into the crowd will miss?"

"No, according to the circumstances of the case," the General replied, shaking his head, sounding bewildered. "They were running, and I noticed only a certain number of men were hit. In the centre of the section, the crowd was very dense and therefore if a man directed his fire well he should not miss."

Q. According to the passage, why did the general believe it was his duty to continue firing?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

"Did you continue firing?"

"Yes," replied the general.

There was an audible gasp that echoed through this crowded room in response to that single word. His Lordship waited for silence to be restored, sitting with eyes lowered, hands clasped tightly on the long table that separated the Committee from everyone else. The folds of his black robe pinched against the table's edge as he hunched forward, leaning heavily on his elbows, asking in a voice strained thin by incredulity:

"If the crowd was going to disperse, why did you not stop firing?"

"I thought it my duty to go on firing until it dispersed. If I fired a little, the effect would not be sufficient. If I had fired a little I should be wrong in firing at all."

"What reason had you to suppose that if you had ordered the assembly to leave the Bagh they would not have done so without the necessity of your firing, continued firing for a length of time?"

"Yes, I think it is quite possible that I could have dispersed them perhaps even without firing."

"Why did you not adopt that course" His Lordship asked, shaking his head, more in wonder than horror, as he asked the question.

"I could not disperse them for some time," the General answered, speaking slowly, sounding distracted as he stared over the heads of the judges, "then they would all come back and laugh at me, and I considered I would be making myself a fool."

A wave of startled comment greeted this remark, and the clamour became so loud that His Lordship was obliged to rap his gavel before continuing his interrogation.

"You know that the casualties were something between four hundred and five hundred."

"Yes I have seen it in the papers. I divided all my rounds by five--" He paused and touched his fingertips to his lips, staring vacantly at the ceiling, mumbling, "I am in doubt whether by five or six--to arrive at the number."

"I understood that the shooting that took place was individual shooting, and it was not volley shooting?"

"No, there was no volley shooting."

"The crowd was very dense?"

"It was very dense."

"It was unlikely that a man shooting into the crowd will miss?"

"No, according to the circumstances of the case," the General replied, shaking his head, sounding bewildered. "They were running, and I noticed only a certain number of men were hit. In the centre of the section, the crowd was very dense and therefore if a man directed his fire well he should not miss."

Q. According to the passage, why did the crowd in the room gasp when they heard the general's answer?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Gifted journalist Ved Mehta, believed that Gandhi was hard to copy. Writing about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism in the United States, Mehta wondered if Gandhi could be replicated in that country. He thought that Gandhi was lucky not to have been born in Leopold's Congo or Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

In the same article, Mehta recalls a dialogue between Gandhi and Nehru during the non-cooperation movement of the 1920s. On hearing about a violent incident in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh, Gandhi decided to withdraw the first all-India movement he had led. Jawaharlal Nehru asked him, 'Must we train the 300 and odd millions of India in the theory and practice of non-violent action before we (can) move forward?'

Gandhi's reply was short and unequivocal: 'Yes.' Gandhi's rigour did mellow with age and experience, but some of his tall contemporaries remained sceptical of his strategy of mass mobilisation. Tagore foresaw that Gandhi's legacy might prove tough to follow in the absence of his leadership.

However, Gandhi's legacy is complex and evokes some fundamental issues embedded in the theory of peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is useful to visit these issues today when we are in the middle of a mass movement focused on a subject of Gandhi's deep concern: rural economy. Those in the forefront of this movement are farmers. The questions their protest brings into public attention go well beyond the validity of their apprehensions and doubts. Gandhi is highly relevant to these questions. His legacy for India, and the rest of the modern world, is not confined to the culture of protest. It also involves an interpretation of peace: its logic and the method of inquiry it demands.

Q. Which of the following is FALSE as per the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Gifted journalist Ved Mehta, believed that Gandhi was hard to copy. Writing about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism in the United States, Mehta wondered if Gandhi could be replicated in that country. He thought that Gandhi was lucky not to have been born in Leopold's Congo or Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

In the same article, Mehta recalls a dialogue between Gandhi and Nehru during the non-cooperation movement of the 1920s. On hearing about a violent incident in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh, Gandhi decided to withdraw the first all-India movement he had led. Jawaharlal Nehru asked him, 'Must we train the 300 and odd millions of India in the theory and practice of non-violent action before we (can) move forward?'

Gandhi's reply was short and unequivocal: 'Yes.' Gandhi's rigour did mellow with age and experience, but some of his tall contemporaries remained sceptical of his strategy of mass mobilisation. Tagore foresaw that Gandhi's legacy might prove tough to follow in the absence of his leadership.

However, Gandhi's legacy is complex and evokes some fundamental issues embedded in the theory of peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is useful to visit these issues today when we are in the middle of a mass movement focused on a subject of Gandhi's deep concern: rural economy. Those in the forefront of this movement are farmers. The questions their protest brings into public attention go well beyond the validity of their apprehensions and doubts. Gandhi is highly relevant to these questions. His legacy for India, and the rest of the modern world, is not confined to the culture of protest. It also involves an interpretation of peace: its logic and the method of inquiry it demands.

Q. What was Tagore's attitude towards legacies of Gandhi?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Gifted journalist Ved Mehta, believed that Gandhi was hard to copy. Writing about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism in the United States, Mehta wondered if Gandhi could be replicated in that country. He thought that Gandhi was lucky not to have been born in Leopold's Congo or Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

In the same article, Mehta recalls a dialogue between Gandhi and Nehru during the non-cooperation movement of the 1920s. On hearing about a violent incident in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh, Gandhi decided to withdraw the first all-India movement he had led. Jawaharlal Nehru asked him, 'Must we train the 300 and odd millions of India in the theory and practice of non-violent action before we (can) move forward?'

Gandhi's reply was short and unequivocal: 'Yes.' Gandhi's rigour did mellow with age and experience, but some of his tall contemporaries remained sceptical of his strategy of mass mobilisation. Tagore foresaw that Gandhi's legacy might prove tough to follow in the absence of his leadership.

However, Gandhi's legacy is complex and evokes some fundamental issues embedded in the theory of peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is useful to visit these issues today when we are in the middle of a mass movement focused on a subject of Gandhi's deep concern: rural economy. Those in the forefront of this movement are farmers. The questions their protest brings into public attention go well beyond the validity of their apprehensions and doubts. Gandhi is highly relevant to these questions. His legacy for India, and the rest of the modern world, is not confined to the culture of protest. It also involves an interpretation of peace: its logic and the method of inquiry it demands.

Q. Why did the author call Gandhi lucky?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Gifted journalist Ved Mehta, believed that Gandhi was hard to copy. Writing about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism in the United States, Mehta wondered if Gandhi could be replicated in that country. He thought that Gandhi was lucky not to have been born in Leopold's Congo or Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

In the same article, Mehta recalls a dialogue between Gandhi and Nehru during the non-cooperation movement of the 1920s. On hearing about a violent incident in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh, Gandhi decided to withdraw the first all-India movement he had led. Jawaharlal Nehru asked him, 'Must we train the 300 and odd millions of India in the theory and practice of non-violent action before we (can) move forward?'

Gandhi's reply was short and unequivocal: 'Yes.' Gandhi's rigour did mellow with age and experience, but some of his tall contemporaries remained sceptical of his strategy of mass mobilisation. Tagore foresaw that Gandhi's legacy might prove tough to follow in the absence of his leadership.

However, Gandhi's legacy is complex and evokes some fundamental issues embedded in the theory of peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is useful to visit these issues today when we are in the middle of a mass movement focused on a subject of Gandhi's deep concern: rural economy. Those in the forefront of this movement are farmers. The questions their protest brings into public attention go well beyond the validity of their apprehensions and doubts. Gandhi is highly relevant to these questions. His legacy for India, and the rest of the modern world, is not confined to the culture of protest. It also involves an interpretation of peace: its logic and the method of inquiry it demands.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Gifted journalist Ved Mehta, believed that Gandhi was hard to copy. Writing about Martin Luther King's struggle against racism in the United States, Mehta wondered if Gandhi could be replicated in that country. He thought that Gandhi was lucky not to have been born in Leopold's Congo or Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.

In the same article, Mehta recalls a dialogue between Gandhi and Nehru during the non-cooperation movement of the 1920s. On hearing about a violent incident in the Chauri Chaura village of Uttar Pradesh, Gandhi decided to withdraw the first all-India movement he had led. Jawaharlal Nehru asked him, 'Must we train the 300 and odd millions of India in the theory and practice of non-violent action before we (can) move forward?'

Gandhi's reply was short and unequivocal: 'Yes.' Gandhi's rigour did mellow with age and experience, but some of his tall contemporaries remained sceptical of his strategy of mass mobilisation. Tagore foresaw that Gandhi's legacy might prove tough to follow in the absence of his leadership.

However, Gandhi's legacy is complex and evokes some fundamental issues embedded in the theory of peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is useful to visit these issues today when we are in the middle of a mass movement focused on a subject of Gandhi's deep concern: rural economy. Those in the forefront of this movement are farmers. The questions their protest brings into public attention go well beyond the validity of their apprehensions and doubts. Gandhi is highly relevant to these questions. His legacy for India, and the rest of the modern world, is not confined to the culture of protest. It also involves an interpretation of peace: its logic and the method of inquiry it demands.

Q. What is the meaning of the word 'unequivocal' as used by the author in the passage?

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The time has come when some introspection by the Indian media is required. Many people, not only those in authority but even ordinary people, have started saying that the media have become irresponsible and wayward, and need to be reined in. A couple of days back, the Union government has issued some regulations regarding licences for news channels, to which there was a lot of reaction. Under the Constitution of India, freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). However, no freedom can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it. One of the basic tasks of the media is to provide truthful and objective information to the people that will enable them to form rational opinions, which is a sine qua non in a democracy. But are the Indian media performing this role properly?

One of the defects is that the media often twist facts. They would misinterpret words, publish news that are false and defamatory, with the obvious intention of creating a sensation. A second defect concerns the issue of paid news that has become prominent of late. In the 2009 elections, it was a scandal. How this vicious practice could be stopped needs to be discussed. A third defect is that the media often portray non-issues as real issues, while the real issues are sidelined. The real issues in India are economic, that is, the terrible economic conditions in which 80 per cent of our people are living, the poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and medical care and so on. Instead of addressing these real issues, the media often try to divert the attention of people to non-issues.

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

India is passing through a transitional period in its history, from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The media must help society in going through this transitional period as quickly as possible. This they can do by attacking feudal ideas, for example, casteism and communalism, and promoting modern scientific ideas.

Q. Which of the following is a near synonym of the word ‘persuasion’?

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The time has come when some introspection by the Indian media is required. Many people, not only those in authority but even ordinary people, have started saying that the media have become irresponsible and wayward, and need to be reined in. A couple of days back, the Union government has issued some regulations regarding licences for news channels, to which there was a lot of reaction. Under the Constitution of India, freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). However, no freedom can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it. One of the basic tasks of the media is to provide truthful and objective information to the people that will enable them to form rational opinions, which is a sine qua non in a democracy. But are the Indian media performing this role properly?

One of the defects is that the media often twist facts. They would misinterpret words, publish news that are false and defamatory, with the obvious intention of creating a sensation. A second defect concerns the issue of paid news that has become prominent of late. In the 2009 elections, it was a scandal. How this vicious practice could be stopped needs to be discussed. A third defect is that the media often portray non-issues as real issues, while the real issues are sidelined. The real issues in India are economic, that is, the terrible economic conditions in which 80 per cent of our people are living, the poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and medical care and so on. Instead of addressing these real issues, the media often try to divert the attention of people to non-issues.

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

India is passing through a transitional period in its history, from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The media must help society in going through this transitional period as quickly as possible. This they can do by attacking feudal ideas, for example, casteism and communalism, and promoting modern scientific ideas.

Q. How can the media help the Indian society, which is going through a transitional period?

(i) By attacking prominent people in the society.

(ii) By promoting modern scientific ideas.

(iii) By raising their voice against feudal ideas.

(iv) By attacking casteism and innovative ideas.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The time has come when some introspection by the Indian media is required. Many people, not only those in authority but even ordinary people, have started saying that the media have become irresponsible and wayward, and need to be reined in. A couple of days back, the Union government has issued some regulations regarding licences for news channels, to which there was a lot of reaction. Under the Constitution of India, freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). However, no freedom can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it. One of the basic tasks of the media is to provide truthful and objective information to the people that will enable them to form rational opinions, which is a sine qua non in a democracy. But are the Indian media performing this role properly?

One of the defects is that the media often twist facts. They would misinterpret words, publish news that are false and defamatory, with the obvious intention of creating a sensation. A second defect concerns the issue of paid news that has become prominent of late. In the 2009 elections, it was a scandal. How this vicious practice could be stopped needs to be discussed. A third defect is that the media often portray non-issues as real issues, while the real issues are sidelined. The real issues in India are economic, that is, the terrible economic conditions in which 80 per cent of our people are living, the poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and medical care and so on. Instead of addressing these real issues, the media often try to divert the attention of people to non-issues.

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

India is passing through a transitional period in its history, from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The media must help society in going through this transitional period as quickly as possible. This they can do by attacking feudal ideas, for example, casteism and communalism, and promoting modern scientific ideas.

Q. Which of the following is a more democratic way to remove defects in media?

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The time has come when some introspection by the Indian media is required. Many people, not only those in authority but even ordinary people, have started saying that the media have become irresponsible and wayward, and need to be reined in. A couple of days back, the Union government has issued some regulations regarding licences for news channels, to which there was a lot of reaction. Under the Constitution of India, freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). However, no freedom can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it. One of the basic tasks of the media is to provide truthful and objective information to the people that will enable them to form rational opinions, which is a sine qua non in a democracy. But are the Indian media performing this role properly?

One of the defects is that the media often twist facts. They would misinterpret words, publish news that are false and defamatory, with the obvious intention of creating a sensation. A second defect concerns the issue of paid news that has become prominent of late. In the 2009 elections, it was a scandal. How this vicious practice could be stopped needs to be discussed. A third defect is that the media often portray non-issues as real issues, while the real issues are sidelined. The real issues in India are economic, that is, the terrible economic conditions in which 80 per cent of our people are living, the poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and medical care and so on. Instead of addressing these real issues, the media often try to divert the attention of people to non-issues.

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

India is passing through a transitional period in its history, from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The media must help society in going through this transitional period as quickly as possible. This they can do by attacking feudal ideas, for example, casteism and communalism, and promoting modern scientific ideas.

Q. Which of the following are the defects of the media pointed out by the author?

(i) Media acts as a pillar of democracy.

(ii) Media often twist facts.

(iii) Media encouraging paid news.

(iv) Media giving prominence to non-issues, instead of real issues.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The time has come when some introspection by the Indian media is required. Many people, not only those in authority but even ordinary people, have started saying that the media have become irresponsible and wayward, and need to be reined in. A couple of days back, the Union government has issued some regulations regarding licences for news channels, to which there was a lot of reaction. Under the Constitution of India, freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). However, no freedom can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it. One of the basic tasks of the media is to provide truthful and objective information to the people that will enable them to form rational opinions, which is a sine qua non in a democracy. But are the Indian media performing this role properly?

One of the defects is that the media often twist facts. They would misinterpret words, publish news that are false and defamatory, with the obvious intention of creating a sensation. A second defect concerns the issue of paid news that has become prominent of late. In the 2009 elections, it was a scandal. How this vicious practice could be stopped needs to be discussed. A third defect is that the media often portray non-issues as real issues, while the real issues are sidelined. The real issues in India are economic, that is, the terrible economic conditions in which 80 per cent of our people are living, the poverty, unemployment, lack of housing and medical care and so on. Instead of addressing these real issues, the media often try to divert the attention of people to non-issues.

There are two ways to remove these defects in the media. One is the democratic way, that is, through discussions, consultations and persuasion. The other way is by using harsh measures against the media, for example, by imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them, suspending their licences, and so on.

India is passing through a transitional period in its history, from a feudal agricultural society to a modern industrial society. The media must help society in going through this transitional period as quickly as possible. This they can do by attacking feudal ideas, for example, casteism and communalism, and promoting modern scientific ideas.

Q. Why does the author say that although freedom of the media is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the government can issue regulations on media?