7/30/2019 RC-3.1

1/4

Directions: Read the passages and answer the questions that follow.

Passage 1

One of the enduring images of Calcutta is the presence of an adda. Roughly translated as the place it is a spot where people

gather often at a street corner, usually at a set time, to discuss and debate. The topic may be anything: French New Wave cinema;

the differences between Stalinists and Trotskyites; or even whether the prince of Bengal, Sourav Ganguly, has outlived his utilityas a member of Indias cricket team. Opinions are expressed freely, and discussions go on for hours, with neither side (assuming

there are only two sides) willing to give in easily.

While addas are special to Calcutta, they are found in other parts of India as well, and form an essential part of the Indian

tradition, of conservation, deliberation and debate, where the give and take of opinions is routine and loud arguments are

frequent. The willingness to listen to other points of view, accepting some, modifying others, rejecting a few, is at the heart of

Indias democratic experience, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. In his new book, The

Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity, which brings together his essays on Indian society

published over the last decade, Mr. Sen reinforces the idea of Indians being loquacious, whose liberal traditions are derived less

from their appreciation of democratic ideals learnt from the West, and more from their own tradition of svikriti, or acceptance.

This exchange is not restricted to the elite. He writes:

It would be a great mistake in this context to assume that because of the possible effectiveness of well-tutored and disciplined

arguments, the argumentative tradition must, in general, favour the privileged and the well-educated, rather than the dispossessed

and the deprived. Some of the most powerful arguments in Indian intellectual history have, in fact, been made about the lives of theleast privileged groups, which have been drawn on the substantive force of these claims, rather than on the cultivated brilliance of

well-trained dialectics.

The examples he cites are not only from ancient India, but also drawn from contemporary history, including election results

like those of 1997, when Indira Gandhis Congress Party was routed after a spell of emergency in which democracy was briefly

suspended; and of 2004, when poor Indians voted out a coalition which had presided over a period of prosperity which had in

some areas widened inequality.

However, as the economist Joan Robinson, who taught Mr. Sen at Cambridge, told him once, whenever you make any

generalization about India, the opposite is equally true. Put another way, the late Nirad Chaudhuri wrote once that in India even

exceptions run into millions. Some may challenge Mr. Sens hypothesis of the argumentative nature of Indians by pointing outthe

submissive nature of Indian before those with power or authority, a point the Indian diplomat Pavan Verma makes in his recent

book Being Indian. And many could question the notion that Indians settle their differences peacefully by pointing out the sorry

history of Hindu-Muslim relations in the subcontinent.

But Mr. Sen, renowned as an economist and widely praised for bringing a moral, philosophical perspective to the dismal

science, is on to something when he says that such violence is the aberration, not the rule. And he does this in a gentle tone, and

spares no one in his critique. He challenges Hindu nationalists who have portrayed Hinduism as a monotheistic, intolerant

religion, out to seek revenge against Muslims today because of the plunder and pillage of some Muslim invaders centuries ago, by

showing other Muslim kings who were integrationist and respectful of Indian culture. But he also upbraids-again gently-the left-

leaning secularists of India, who challenge the Hindu nationalists by emphasizing the contributions of other religions and

cultures, and by belittling Hinduism for its hierarchical nature.

Mr. Sen is critical of such an approach. You cannot deny that a vast majority of Indians are Hindus, and their practices and

thinking have influenced India, shaping it positively, making it a special place, in which the narrow nationalism of the Hindu

fundamentalists is the exception. The posturing of some Indian academics and the broader left come in for special criticism: they

draw on arguments developed in Western universities and criticize globalization and its influence on India, as if India is a fragile

state that would get swamped by the tide. Some Indian politicians regularly fulminate against the influence of MTV, and their

followers have ransacked shops selling St. Valentines Day cards in India. But India has always had an open mind, its feet plantedfirmly in the ground, and it has absorbed external influence remarkably well, Mr. Sen points out.

What Indians learn from the West is not so much outward manifestations as the underlying ideas. And so it is that a poet

Rabindranath Tagore develops dislike for nationalism which can degenerate into fascism, and a filmmaker like Satyajit Ray, sees

Vittorio de Sicas The Bicycle Thief, yet does not make an imitative film, but learns to use non-actors in outdoor locations, and

makes Pather Panchali, (Song of the Little Road), which then goes on to win a special prize at Cannes in 1956. The ability- to learn

from elsewhere, transform the idea, and make it your own, is a major part of the Indian tradition. Which is why when McDonald s

sets up shop in India, it does not sound a death knell of the samosa, the Indian chefs dont go about destroying the restaurant;

rather, Mc Donalds is forced to offer the McAllo Tikki Burger for its vegetarian customers. India has always absorbed external

7/30/2019 RC-3.1

2/4

influences, making them part of the syncretic being.

In highlighting this absorptive capacity of Indian culture, Mr. Sen also challenges the notion that Asian values are somehow

different from the Western values, and that the ides of human rights in Western, and hence a foreign concept for the Asian

mindset. He would have approved of the response the former New York Congressman Stephen Solarz gave a journalist in

Singapore in the late 1990s. The reporter asked him if democracy was after all a Western value, since Singapores then Senior

Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysias then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed had said so. Mr. Solarz replied that he could

think of several Asians who would disagree with that view, and they included the Dalai Lama and Anwar Ibrahim.At a time when China and India are emerging as this centurys major economic powers, one of the most interesting chapters in

the book is devoted to the cultural connections between ancient India and China. Mr. Sen reveals the rich and deep exchange of

views among scholars, shared manuscripts, trade, and more importantly scientific and mathematical knowledge. The colonial

experience brought this exchange to an end. Today, when Indian pharmaceutical companies set up shop in China, and Chinese

software companies invest in Bangalore in India, they are only picking up the contact that had been suspended temporarily.

The resilience of the Indian democracy, ultimately, emerges from its argumentative tradition, based on public reasoning,

which also explains the defence of secular politics and the struggle against inequality. It does not mean the absence of

horrendous inequities, but it does show that Indians have the mean to deal with those problems peacefully.

1. According to the first two paragraphs of the passage, which of the following is not a characteristic of adda?1] The topic of discussion in an adda is not restricted to any particular sphere of knowledge.

2] People gather in addas only in Calcutta.

3] The discussions or debates continue for hours.4] The spot where people gather for discussion is usually some street corner.

2. The reviewer considers economics to be ______.1] dismal 2] argumentative 3] challenging 4] [2] and [3]

3. In the light of the information given in the passage, who among the following do not find a mention in Amartya Sens book?1] Muslin kings in India 2] Hindu nationalists

3] Pavan Verma and Nirad Chaudhari 4] Indira Gandhi and her Congress party

4. Which of the following views about Asians would be supported by Amartya Sen?1] They harbor a negative attitude towards the concept of human rights.

2] They have always challenged the concept of human rights.

3] They think that the concept of human rights is a Western one, hence not to be imbibed.

4] None of the above.

5. Why do you think Amartya Sen had devoted one section of his book to describe the cultural connections between India andChina?

1] Because Indias political relations with China have been strained recently.

2] Because India and China are fast emerging as major economic powers and entering into trade relations.

3] Because Chinese and Indian histories are closely intertwined.

4] Because Chinese software companies have invested heavily in the software firms in Bangalore.

6. From the expression in India even exceptions run into millions, we can infer that India is a land characterized by:1] secularity 2] extremity 3] heterogeneity 4] rigidity

7. Which of the following views will be least supported by Amartya Sen?1] Indians are loquacious by nature and are quite accommodating when it comes to accepting external

influences.

2] The Hindu nationalists should allow the dead to sleep in their grave and not seek revenge against the Muslims today.

3] The election result of 2004 shows that Indians will not hesitate to throw away a government which has encouraged

discrimination in some spheres.4] When it comes to fashion and culture of the West, Indians throw their sensibilities to the winds and blindly ape the west.

8. The excerpt from Amartya Sens book has been given to demonstrate that:1] The argumentative tradition in India is not class-specific.

2] In India it has been observed that well-tutored and disciplined arguments are always more effective.

3] The whole gamut of Indian intellectual history is full of powerful arguments.

4] None of the above.

9. Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?1] The tradition ofsvikriti or acceptance is very much an Indian concept.

7/30/2019 RC-3.1

3/4

2] Indian consumers flock to McDonalds outlets as a sign of acceptance.

3] Indians are very open to accepting foreign influence but they also have the ability to mould it according to their own

perceptions.

4] Some Indian politicians feel MTV has a negative influence on Indian society.

10. What is implied by the sentence It does not mean the absence of horrendous inequities, but it does show that Indians have tomeans to deal with those problems peacefully?

1] India is a land of unpleasant inequalities.2] Democratic principles are deep-rooted enough to end the existing inequalities.

3] Indians have an inherent faith in peace.

4] Indians have developed a stoic resistance to social inequalities.

Passage - 2

Already there are indications that Theism, which is the theory of speculation, is being replaced b Atheism, the science of

demonstration; one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the others has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the

earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.

The decline of Theism is the most interesting spectacle, especially as manifested in the anxiety of the theists, whatever be

their particular brand. They realize much to their distress, that the masses are daily growing more atheistic, more anti-religious;

that they are quite willing to leave the Great Beyond and its heavenly domain to the angels and sparrow; because the masses are

becoming engrossed in the problems of their immediate existence.How to bring the masses back to the idea of God, the spirit, the First Cause, etc. -that is the most pressing question to all theists.

Metaphysical, as all these questions seem to be, they yet have a very marked physical background. Inasmuch as religion, Divine

Truth, rewards and punishments are the trade-marks of the largest, the most corrupt and pernicious, the most powerful and

lucrative industry in the world, not excepting the industry of manufacturing guns and munitions. It is the industry of befogging

the human mind and stifling the human heart. Necessity knows no law; hence the majority of theists are compelled to take up

every subject, even if it has no bearing upon a deity or revelation or the Great Beyond. Perhaps they sense the fact that humanity

is growing weary of the hundred and one brands of God.

How to raise this dead level of theistic belief is really a matter of life and death for all denominations. Therefore their

tolerance; but it is a tolerance not of understanding, but of weakness. Perhaps that explains the efforts fostered in all religious

publications to combine variegated religious philosophies and conflicting theistic theories into one denominational trust. More

and more, the various concepts of the only true God, the only pure spirit, the only true religion are tolerantly glossed ov er in

the frantic effort to establish a common ground to rescue the modern mass from the pernicious influence of atheistic ideas.

Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devil heaven and hell respectively. Reward and punishment to

them are a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment. The truth is that Theism would have lost its

footing long before this but for the combined support of Mammon and power. How thoroughly bankrupt it really is, is being

demonstrated in the tranches and battlefield of Europe today.

Have not all theists painted their Deity as the god of Love and goodness? Yet after thousands of years of such preachments

the gods remain deaf to the agony of the human race.

The philosophy of Atheism expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind. The philosophy of Theism, if we can call

it philosophy, is static and fixed. Even the mere attempt to pierce there mysteries represents, from the theistic point of view, non-

belief in the all-embracing omnipotence, and even a denial of the wisdom of the divine powers outside of man. Fortunately,

however, the human mind never was, and never can be, bound by fixities. Hence it is forging ahead in its restless march towards

knowledge and life. The human mind is realizing That the universe is not the result of a creative fiat by some divine intelligence,

out of nothing, producing a masterpiece chaotic in perfect operation, but that it is the product of chaotic forces operating

through aeons of time, of clashes and cataclysms, of repulsion and attraction crystallizing through the principle of selection intowhat the theists call, the universe guided into order and beauty. As Joseph McCabe well points out in his Existence of God: A

law of nature is not a formula drawn up by a legislator, but a mere summary of the observed facts- a bundle of facts. Things do

not act in a particular way because there is a law, but we state the law because they act in that way.

The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the

concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which,

with its spirits, oracles and mean contentment has kept humanity helpless degradation.

It may seem a wild paradox, and yet it is pathetically true, that this real, visible world and our life should have been so long under

the influence of metaphysical speculation, rather than physical, demonstrable forces. Under the lash of the theistic idea, this

7/30/2019 RC-3.1

4/4

earth has served no other purpose than as temporary station to test mans capacity for immolation to the will of God. But the

moment man attempted to ascertain the nature of that will, he was told that it was utterly futile for finite human intelligence to

get beyond the all-powerful infinite will. Under the terrific weight of this omnipotence, man has been bowed into the dust- a will-

less creature, broken and sweating in the dark. The triumph of philosophy of Atheism is to free man from the nightmare of gods;

it means the dissolution of the phantoms of the Beyond. Again and again, the light of reasons has dispelled the theistic

nightmare, but poverty, misery and fear have recreated the phantoms though whether old or new, whatever their external

form, they differed little in their essence. Atheism, on the other hand, in its philosophic aspect refuses allegiance not merely tothe definite concept of God, but it refuses all servitude to the God idea, and opposes the theistic principle as such.

s

10 items for Passage 2

(Mark the items that you think will appear in the passage.)

1. Opinions of different people about Sisyphus.2. The lineage of Sisyphus.3.

Why was Sisyphus punished?

4. The mythological story of Sisyphus.5. Details about Sisyphus life before being punished.6. As a protagonist, what does Sisyphus portray?7. A detailed description of how Sisyphus had to endlessly repeat his work

and its implication.

8. A description of the tragic fates of other mythological characters.9. A discussion on the narrative style of the myth.10.The authors opinion about the injustice meted out to Sisyphus.