In recent weeks the writers William Dalrymple and Patrick French, among others, have come before a fusillade of criticism in India, much of it questioning not their facts, not their interpretations, but their foreignness. “Who gets to write about India?” The Wall Street Journal asked on Wednesday in its own report on this Indian literary feuding. It is a complicated question, not least because to decide who gets to write about India, you would need to decide who gets to decide who gets to write about India. Rather than conjecturing some Committee for the Deciding of the Deciding of Who Gets to Write About India, it might be easier to let writers write what they please and readers read what they wish.
The accusations pouring forth from a section of the Indian commentariat are varied. Some criticism is of a genuine literary nature, fair game, customary, expected. But lately a good amount of the reproaching has been about identity.
In the case ofMr. Dalrymple, a Briton who lives in New Delhi, it is—in the critics’ view—that his writing is an act of re-colonization. In the case ofMr. French, it is that he belongs to a group of foreign writers who use business-class lounges and see some merit in capitalism and therefore do not know the real India, which only the commentarial member in question does. What is most interesting about these appraisals is that their essential nature makes reading the book superfluous, as one of my Indian reviewers openly admitted. (His review was not about the book but about his refusal to read the book). The book is not necessary in these cases, for the argument is about who can write about India, not what has been written.

For critics of this persuasion, India surely seems a lonely land. A country with a millennial history of Hindus, Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists living peaceably together; a country of hundreds of dialects in which so many. Indians are linguistic foreigners to each other, and happily, tolerantly so; a country that welcomes foreign seekers (of yoga poses, of spiritual wisdom, of ancestral roots) with open arms; a country where, outside the elite world of South Delhi and South Bombay, I have not heard an Indian ask whether outsiders have a right to write, think or exist on their soil.
But it is not just this deep-in-the-bones pluralism that challenges the who-gets-to-write-about-India contingent. It is also that at the very heart of India’s multifarious changes today is this glimmering idea: that Indians must be rewarded for what they do, not who they are.
Identities you never chose—caste, gender, birth order—are becoming less important determinants of fate. Your deeds—how hard you work, what risks you take—are becoming more important. It is this idea, which I have found pulsating throughout the Indian layers, that leaves a certain portion of the intelligentsia out of sync with the surrounding country. As Mr. French has observed, there is a tendency in some of these writers to value social mobility only for themselves. When the new economy lifts up the huddled masses, then it becomes tawdry capitalism and rapacious imperialism and soulless globalization. Fortunately for those without Indian passports, the nativists’ vision of India is under demographic siege. The young and the relentless are India’s future. They could not think more differently from these literatis.
They savour the freedom they are gaining to seek their own level in the society and to find their voice; and they tend to be delighted at the thought that some foreigners do the same in India and love their country as much as they do.
According to the passage, the question ‘who gets to write about India’ is complicated because:

• India has been historically open to and tolerant of foreign writers and artists.

• This issue can be satisfactorily resolved only if we can decide who gets to decide who gets to write about India

• Ascriptive identities are becoming more and more important in a globalized world.

• Ascriptive identities are becoming more and more important in a globalized world.

In recent weeks the writers William Dalrymple and Patrick French, among others, have come before a fusillade of criticism in India, much of it questioning not their facts, not their interpretations, but their foreignness. “Who gets to write about India?” The Wall Street Journal asked on Wednesday in its own report on this Indian literary feuding. It is a complicated question, not least because to decide who gets to write about India, you would need to decide who gets to decide who gets to write about India. Rather than conjecturing some Committee for the Deciding of the Deciding of Who Gets to Write About India, it might be easier to let writers write what they please and readers read what they wish.
The accusations pouring forth from a section of the Indian commentariat are varied. Some criticism is of a genuine literary nature, fair game, customary, expected. But lately a good amount of the reproaching has been about identity.
In the case ofMr. Dalrymple, a Briton who lives in New Delhi, it is—in the critics’ view—that his writing is an act of re-colonization. In the case ofMr. French, it is that he belongs to a group of foreign writers who use business-class lounges and see some merit in capitalism and therefore do not know the real India, which only the commentarial member in question does. What is most interesting about these appraisals is that their essential nature makes reading the book superfluous, as one of my Indian reviewers openly admitted. (His review was not about the book but about his refusal to read the book). The book is not necessary in these cases, for the argument is about who can write about India, not what has been written.

For critics of this persuasion, India surely seems a lonely land. A country with a millennial history of Hindus, Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists living peaceably together; a country of hundreds of dialects in which so many. Indians are linguistic foreigners to each other, and happily, tolerantly so; a country that welcomes foreign seekers (of yoga poses, of spiritual wisdom, of ancestral roots) with open arms; a country where, outside the elite world of South Delhi and South Bombay, I have not heard an Indian ask whether outsiders have a right to write, think or exist on their soil.
But it is not just this deep-in-the-bones pluralism that challenges the who-gets-to-write-about-India contingent. It is also that at the very heart of India’s multifarious changes today is this glimmering idea: that Indians must be rewarded for what they do, not who they are.
Identities you never chose—caste, gender, birth order—are becoming less important determinants of fate. Your deeds—how hard you work, what risks you take—are becoming more important. It is this idea, which I have found pulsating throughout the Indian layers, that leaves a certain portion of the intelligentsia out of sync with the surrounding country. As Mr. French has observed, there is a tendency in some of these writers to value social mobility only for themselves. When the new economy lifts up the huddled masses, then it becomes tawdry capitalism and rapacious imperialism and soulless globalization. Fortunately for those without Indian passports, the nativists’ vision of India is under demographic siege. The young and the relentless are India’s future. They could not think more differently from these literatis.
They savour the freedom they are gaining to seek their own level in the society and to find their voice; and they tend to be delighted at the thought that some foreigners do the same in India and love their country as much as they do.
“But with many outsiders’ India-related books recently hitting bookstores there, the sensitivity—flared into a bout of vigorous literary nativism, with equally vigorous counterpunches.” Select the most appropriate choice to fill in the blank in the above sentence:

• Has

• Have

• Was

• Was

73.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Choose the word, which is most opposite in meaning of the word, printed in bold as used in the passage Deleterious

• Beneficial

• Harmful

• Irreparable

• Irreparable

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The author's most important objective of writing the above passage seems to

• Highlight the use of nuclear weapons as an effective population control measures.

• Illustrate the devastating effects of use of nuclear weapons on mankind.

• Duly highlight the supremacy of the nations which possess nuclear weapons.

• Duly highlight the supremacy of the nations which possess nuclear weapons.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The scientists engaged in manufacturing destructive weapons are

• Very few in number

• Irresponsible and incompetent

• More than half of the total number

• More than half of the total number

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
According to the passage, the argument on use and manufacture of nuclear weapons

• Does not stand the test of legality

• Possesses legal strength although it does not have moral standing

• Is acceptable only on moral grounds

• Is acceptable only on moral grounds

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The author of the passage seems to be of the view that

• Utilization of scientific skills in manufacture of weapons is appropriate

• Manufacture of weapons of death would help eradication of poverty.

• Spending money on manufacture of weapons may be justifiable subject to the availability of funds.
  
  

• Spending money on manufacture of weapons may be justifiable subject to the availability of funds.
  
  

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Which of the following is one of the consequences of nuclear war?

• Fertility of land will last for a year or so.

• Post-war survivors being very few will have abundant food.

• Lights would be cooler and more comfortable.

• Lights would be cooler and more comfortable.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Which of the following best explains the word devoted, as used in the passage?

• Dedicated for a good cause

• Utilised for betterment

• Abused for destruction

• Abused for destruction

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.

The biological consequences of nuclear war as given in the passage include all the following,
except

• Fall in temperature below zero degree Celsius

• Ultraviolet radiation

• High does of ionizing

• High does of ionizing