What, according to the passage, is the perennial problem that a tenant has to face?

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.

Why does a tenant submit to those do’s and don’ts?

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 leads to the conclusion that

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 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.

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 writer does not seem to be entirely dismissive of all sermons. They could be useful if

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer seems to imply that

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer indicates that a typical sermonizer we encounter

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

Writer’s attitude towards the sermonizers is

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer views a sermonizer as

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer seems to suggest that sermons should not be taken seriously as

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer talks about a few hurdles a tenant must face before he actually gets a roof over his head. What is the first hurdle he must cross before he is given a proper hearing by the landlord?

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.