Reading Comprehension

A careful reading of the passage leads one to which of the following conclusions?

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

‘If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people, by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.’ What possible impact may the author be alluding to?

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

'Statements routinely issued by the government of the day are not newsworthy'. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

Does the reading of the passage lead one to the conclusion that the author wants discontinuation of this practice of issuing routine statements altogether?

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

The headline of a newspaper represents the thinking mind of a nation. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

Why does the author say that he is mortified by what he encounters every morning in bold prints?

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

The author says that something becomes news because it is headlined by the newspapers. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

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

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

'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.

What is the contextual meaning of the word 'morally' in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the given question.

By the time a child has reached the age of two years, the psychologist says that he is 'self-conscious'. This is not the same as the lay use of the term, although there is a connection. The psychologist means that the child is aware that he is a self and not an extension of his mother. This awareness is shown in such behavioural acts as disobedience and the use of the word 'no' with emphasis, because the child is aware that he does not have to obey parental commands. Parental commands (moral imperatives) are given throughout these two years first for the child's own safety e.g. ‘don’t touch the fire' and secondly, so that he begins to develop some sense of right and wrong. An adult is able to weigh the consequences of his actions partly because he has developed a concept or idea of time. The young child lacks this concept and is governed by immediate desires which must be fulfilled. Thus, in some situations, he can be excused for not behaving morally, i.e. making the choice which is 'good' for himself and others. In other situation, he knows what is right and chooses not to do it. Immature adults can also behave in this self centred way.