Questions
The author says, ‘there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times'. Which of the following options tend to underline the difference forming the underlying theme of the passage?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- By drawing the reader’s attention to ‘our brand of nuisance’, the author seems to show the difference.
- The dividing line between sense and nonsense, the author says, is so blurred in our times that it would be difficult to tell one from the other.
- He says his ‘nuisance’ was not injurious, but we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning.
- The author underlines this difference in the opening paragraph itself where he talks of ‘our brand of democracy’ and this theme is carried forward in the passage repeatedly.
Would Forster have allowed even those two cheers if he had lived in our times?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- No, even though there is no clear indication about it in the passage, it can be presumed so.
- He may have allowed those two cheers as the times and values have so radically altered. He may have revised his views about democracy itself.
- May be not, for there is so much qualitative difference between his times and ours.
- Basic features of democracy have not changed. He would certainly have allowed those two cheers.
Why does Forster refer to parliament as 'talking shop'?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- He calls it a talking shop because those in the parliament are supposed to create nuisance.
- He calls it a talking shop because the occupants of parliament are licensed to make a nuisance of themselves and talk things that make no sense.
- He calls it a talking shop because parliament permits its members to unleash their thoughts, their ideas even if they appear gibberish and nonsensical.
- Forster wants these talking shops closed because the members usually talk things that do not make much sense.
In the second paragraph of the passage, there are few expression that seem to describe Forster's 'nuisance'. Identify them.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- Allow chatter
- Admit variety
- Permit criticism
- Enable culling of sense
Towards the end of the passage, the author advises us to take nuisance with a statutory warning. What does this ‘statutory warning’ remind of?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- It reminds of a strange correlation between an injurious and a non-injurious statutory warning.
- It reminds of the precaution that a reader must take while making distinction between nuisance of your time and nuisance of our times.
- It reminds of the need of being cautious while making any judgemental observation.
- It reminds of a plain statutory warning carried on cigarette packets - ‘smoking is injurious to health’.
'He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with this belief'. What does this convey to you as you read the passage?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- It shows the limitations of democracy in the eyes of Forster.
- It shows Forster would not have advocated for democracy if it were not for those two elements.
- It shows him as a strong supporter of democracy despite its seeming limitations.
- It shows the ambivalence of Forster on the question of democracy.
'As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.' Which opinion is he talking of revising?
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.
- He is talking about revising our opinion on whether Forster was justified in giving two cheers for democracy.
- He is seeking to revise our opinion on whether force was actually required to run a democracy.
- The opinion on the use of force in a democracy as Forster saw it called for revision after the apex court gave its orders on the use of police force at Ram Lila Maidan.
- He is talking about the desirability of treating parliament as a talking shop where nuisance was talked and sense at times accidentally got talked.