Reading Comprehension

The author’s approach appears to be

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Tenants are usually the accursed lot. They are forced by the circumstance to live in a house they do not own, for which they have to cough up a sizeable chunk of their hard earned money. But their travail does not end with just paying the rent. In fact, it begins from there. Of course, there are quite a few tenants who give a torrid time to their landlords. But such cases are more an exception than rule. A tenant is always at the mercy of his landlord or landlady. Landlords, it would seem, like to keep their tenants on a tenterhook.
Relation between a tenant and his landlord is rarely, if ever, a very cordial one. It may begin on a cordial note. But certainly does not end on the same note. Sometimes the process gets reversed too. But such occasions are few. For, if it did not begin on a cordial note, the deal would never be struck. The word cordial however is not appropriate here, because cordiality begins with the tenant and ends with him. It is not for him to expect that the landlord would return cordiality. It is the tenant who needs a roof over his head. The landlord can afford to ignore a number of tenants even for an indefinite period of time.
So, a prospective tenant makes a cautious approach to his prospective landlord who subjects him to a grilling interview before deciding to condescend a proper hearing. The prospective tenant answers every question in great trepidation, for he does not know which answer of his may disqualify him. The prospective landlord extracts every bit of information about his hapless victim, but reveals very little about himself. If the prospective tenant crosses the first hurdle successfully and unscathed, he then faces another crucial area of settling the rent. If this hurdle is also crossed successfully and without being bruised, then he faces the most crucial one. That is the area of do’s and don’ts.
These do’s and don’ts are like Ten Commandments. The tenant has no choice but to follow them meticulously. While listing all those do’s and don’ts here may not be desirable, we can afford to take a look at some of the queer conditions that bind a tenant to what may be called a tether post. One of such conditions must relate to rational (it is rationed, actually) use of water. At the time of striking a deal, water would usually not pose any problem at all and would hardly be a matter of discussion then. But once the house is occupied and the advance rent is paid, water becomes a perennial problem which is resolved always at the cost of the poor tenant. The poor tenant has no choice but to acquiesce to whatever arrangement is made, for he cannot afford to change house so quickly yet again. Besides, he can never be sure he will not be meted out the same or worse treatment elsewhere. So he stays put. If he has small children, he is specifically asked to keep them restrained. They must not make noise, nor must they pluck flowers, if there are any in the close vicinity. They must not dare to socialize with the landlord or his family. Landlords are a class apart. They would not approve of too many guests, or of parties. Ceremonies of all kinds are best avoided. Tenants must lead as sedate a life as can be possible.

What possible dangers does the author envisage when an institution becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of ‘limited government’, or, ‘the government of laws, not of men’, as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.
At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct, — Judicial Review, — could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owning to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the ‘normal’ and ‘emergency’ provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owning to multiple amendments of the Constitution.
The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.

What, according to the passage, is the biggest concern of the author?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of ‘limited government’, or, ‘the government of laws, not of men’, as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.
At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct, — Judicial Review, — could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owning to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the ‘normal’ and ‘emergency’ provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owning to multiple amendments of the Constitution.
The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.

Reading of the passage leads to the conclusion that the author is of the view that

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of ‘limited government’, or, ‘the government of laws, not of men’, as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.
At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct, — Judicial Review, — could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owning to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the ‘normal’ and ‘emergency’ provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owning to multiple amendments of the Constitution.
The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.

According to the author, the balance between the normal and emergency provisions is palpably destroyed

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of ‘limited government’, or, ‘the government of laws, not of men’, as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.
At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct, — Judicial Review, — could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owning to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the ‘normal’ and ‘emergency’ provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owning to multiple amendments of the Constitution.
The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.

By exercising which power can the continuation of democracy in India be ensured?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of ‘limited government’, or, ‘the government of laws, not of men’, as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.
At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct, — Judicial Review, — could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owning to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the ‘normal’ and ‘emergency’ provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owning to multiple amendments of the Constitution.
The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.

The objective of the writer in writing this passage seems to

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Tenants are usually the accursed lot. They are forced by the circumstance to live in a house they do not own, for which they have to cough up a sizeable chunk of their hard earned money. But their travail does not end with just paying the rent. In fact, it begins from there. Of course, there are quite a few tenants who give a torrid time to their landlords. But such cases are more an exception than rule. A tenant is always at the mercy of his landlord or landlady. Landlords, it would seem, like to keep their tenants on a tenterhook.
Relation between a tenant and his landlord is rarely, if ever, a very cordial one. It may begin on a cordial note. But certainly does not end on the same note. Sometimes the process gets reversed too. But such occasions are few. For, if it did not begin on a cordial note, the deal would never be struck. The word cordial however is not appropriate here, because cordiality begins with the tenant and ends with him. It is not for him to expect that the landlord would return cordiality. It is the tenant who needs a roof over his head. The landlord can afford to ignore a number of tenants even for an indefinite period of time.
So, a prospective tenant makes a cautious approach to his prospective landlord who subjects him to a grilling interview before deciding to condescend a proper hearing. The prospective tenant answers every question in great trepidation, for he does not know which answer of his may disqualify him. The prospective landlord extracts every bit of information about his hapless victim, but reveals very little about himself. If the prospective tenant crosses the first hurdle successfully and unscathed, he then faces another crucial area of settling the rent. If this hurdle is also crossed successfully and without being bruised, then he faces the most crucial one. That is the area of do’s and don’ts.
These do’s and don’ts are like Ten Commandments. The tenant has no choice but to follow them meticulously. While listing all those do’s and don’ts here may not be desirable, we can afford to take a look at some of the queer conditions that bind a tenant to what may be called a tether post. One of such conditions must relate to rational (it is rationed, actually) use of water. At the time of striking a deal, water would usually not pose any problem at all and would hardly be a matter of discussion then. But once the house is occupied and the advance rent is paid, water becomes a perennial problem which is resolved always at the cost of the poor tenant. The poor tenant has no choice but to acquiesce to whatever arrangement is made, for he cannot afford to change house so quickly yet again. Besides, he can never be sure he will not be meted out the same or worse treatment elsewhere. So he stays put. If he has small children, he is specifically asked to keep them restrained. They must not make noise, nor must they pluck flowers, if there are any in the close vicinity. They must not dare to socialize with the landlord or his family. Landlords are a class apart. They would not approve of too many guests, or of parties. Ceremonies of all kinds are best avoided. Tenants must lead as sedate a life as can be possible.

The passage depicts a picture of

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

The presentation of London in the opening paragraph of the passage is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following, according to the passage, is the most cogent explanation for England's failure to compete with the rest of the world, an explanation it is loath to accept?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following can definitely not be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following aptly sums up the theme of the essay?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

According to the passage 'the eradication of landlordism and casteism' was

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

The author backs a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists because he believes

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

When the author writes about ‘ruinous results’, the reference is to

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.