0

Reading Comprehension

Description: MBA entrance test questions with answers numbering 25
Number of Questions: 20
Created by:
Tags: questions for common admission test for MBA entrantsomprehension Main Idea Reading Comprehension Inference Purpose Specific Details Vocabulary in Context
Attempted 0/20 Correct 0 Score 0

India's failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. The reading of the passage reveals that

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. this appears to be one of the conclusions drawn by the author

  2. this conclusion has to be taken with a pinch of salt

  3. there is no clear message in the passage to lead to this conclusion

  4. this is one of the observations of the apex court of the country and appears to have been backed by the author


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The apex court in the course of delivering orders on black money & on appointment of SPOs by Chhattisgarh government made this observation which the author is in agreementseems to agree with. This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the passage.

Why does the author give a detailed review of all articles of UN Convention against corruption?

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. The author wants to show his knowledge of the Convention.

  2. The author wants to draw comparisons between the proposed Lokpal bill and the UN Convention.

  3. The author wants to inform people at large about the Convention and contrast it with the limited steps taken by the government.

  4. The author is effusive about the positives of the Convention.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

The author wants to draw the attention to the provisions of the Convention and contrast it with the limited steps the government has taken to deal with the matter.

In the opening paragraph of the passage the author says “it suits our politicians to keep it unresolved.” By 'it' he means

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. Corruption

  2. The widening gap between the haves and the have-nots

  3. Reservation

  4. Constitution of India


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

'Reservation' is the noun represented by pronoun 'it'. While discussing the question of reservation for which provision was made in the Constitution, it was stipulated by the constitution makers that 'it' (reservation) is a temporary measure and that it should be reviewed after ten years and dispensed with at the earliest. But it suited our politicians to keep 'it' (reservation) unresolved.

The author has drawn our attention to a fear expressed by Robert I. Rotberg. As per the passage, what inference do you draw about Rotbert?

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. That Rotberg is a key UN Functionary.

  2. That Rotberg has authored the book alluded to in the passage.

  3. That Rotberg is spearheading a movement against corruption.

  4. That Rotberg is a crusader against the UN Convention.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

Rotberg is clearly shown as the author of When States Fail—Causes and Consequences which is a book.

Which of the following is true with regards to the author's approach in the passage?

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. The author has made an objective analysis of the issue.

  2. The author is unconcerned about the practical difficulties the government face.

  3. The author does not recognize existence of roadblocks in formulation of any act aimed at tackling corruption.

  4. The author gives an impression that government is not keen to ratify the Convention in its entirety.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

True. This is the logical conclusion that a reader is led to. In the opening paragraph, author talks about a 'growing impression' of government of not being serious and this theme is carried forward. The author is hugely critical of the government.

The author says that government after government has dithered on an important institution. He is referring to

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. Institution of UN Convention Against Corruption

  2. Institution of Ombudsman

  3. Institution of Lokpal

  4. Institution of Vigilance Commission


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

It is the office of Lokpal that has been hanging fire for over forty years.

The author says that “India harbours the ambitions of becoming a permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it”. This implies that:

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. the author does not see any role for India in the Security Council

  2. the author believes a permanent seat in the Security Council will automatically raise India's status in the world

  3. the author questions and ridicules India's claim for a permanent seat in the Security Council without its willingness to take the responsibility that comes with it

  4. the author is supportive of India's claim to the permanent seat in the Security Council, but wants India to take responsibility that goes with the power


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

Author does question not pooh-pooh India's claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council especially when it is unwilling to take the responsibility that goes with it and almost ridicules the very idea itselfeither.

As per the passage, according to Kofi Annan, corruption hurts poor the most because

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. the poor have no influence on government decisions.

  2. development funds do not reach the poor because of the presence of corruption at all levels. Since government authority is undermined, there is no control on the development funds.

  3. it makes no economic sense to empower the poor.

  4. the poor are not keen to contain corruption.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

There is sufficient indication that failure to tackle corruption leads to complicity. Undermining of authority is possible when government abdicates its role of governing and that indirectly makes it complicit in the crime. This hurts the poor because the development funds do not reach them as the government either due to its complicity or due to its diminished authority of power, fails to deliver on the ground where it matters the most.

Is there any common thread in the passage that runs through both the proposed Lokpal bill and Frankenstein?

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. Both are institutions.

  2. Hypocrisy runs through both of them.

  3. Establishment has morbid fear of both of them.

  4. Both call for legislation.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

True. The establishment has morbid fear of both the Frankenstein for what it is and Lokpal for what it could become.

The central theme of the passage can best be summarised as:

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

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

  1. The government lacks the commitment to tackle corruption.

  2. The government does not have the necessary wherewithal to deal with corruption.

  3. The government has made sincere attempts to contain corruption.

  4. People by and large seem supportive of the idea of a strong Lokpal bill.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

This is the correct answer. Reading of the passage leads to this very conclusion that there is complete lack of commitment on the part of the government to tackle corruption.

Why is the author so sceptic about calling it ‘advent of cynicism’?

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. Because the author is not sure of what advent denotes

  2. Because the author is not sure of what advent connotes

  3. His scepticism stems from his inability to define it

  4. He believes advent must refer to something having definite contour which cynicism, accordingly to the author, does not have and thus, he is sceptic


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The author believes that advent of a thing or a person can be stated only if the thing or the person has a definite contour. He is not sure if cynicism had a definite contour. That is the reason why he is sceptic.

The anxiety of the writer is to paint a realistic picture of contemporary life because

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. he is dismayed by the lack of governance

  2. he thinks cynicism is curative that can improve the quality of our society

  3. he sees no deliverance from political corruption

  4. he advocates denunciation of political class as a whole


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

True. He sees lack of governance as the cause and cynicism as the effect. He examines this cause and effect relation between the two.

‘In today’s context, the number is legion. And the reason….is too obvious to be stated.’ What is the unstated reason for the ever increasing number of cynics?

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. As the population of the world is on the rise, so is the population of cynics.

  2. Loss of confidence in governments’ ability to deliver has resulted in distrust of the establishment and this trust deficit has led to inflating the number of cynics. This is the case all over the world and is too obvious to be stated.

  3. There are more and more people taking to the philosophy of cynicism which is contributing to increased number of cynics.

  4. As the reason is unstated, obvious or not obvious, there is no justification for it.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

This is largely true. Cynics have come to forefront because of what is perceived as the failure of governments all over the world. There is a growing lack of confidence in the ability of the government to deliver and this has resulted in distrust of the governments. It is so obvious and manifest all over that it hardly needs to be stated overtly. Writer has already stated the main thrust of his essay.

People have grown cynical because

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. governance has generally failed

  2. cynicism is a kind of philosophy and people have accepted this philosophy

  3. people have great hopes from the cynics to deliver where politicians have failed

  4. it gives people a sense of joy because people are generally sadist


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

A reading of the passage leads to the conclusion that governance has generally failed and this has resulted in people becoming cynic.

“The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period.” It suggests

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. the writer is not interested in the history of the distant past

  2. the writer is not very sure of what exactly the philosophy of cynicism was

  3. the writer is mainly concerned with cynicism no matter what the period

  4. the writer is primarily concerned with the rise of cynicism and examines the causes with particular reference to post independence India. At the same time author also wants to acquaint us with the history of cynicism as it was and is


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

True. Even though the passage ends before dwelling on the post-independence cynicism, the author has stated it clearlythere are enough indications that he is going to deal with the cynicism of post-independence India.

Why does the writer say “Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here.”

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. Spiritus Mundi is a mythical illusion myth which the poet draws upon to drive home his point.

  2. While Yeats had this myth to fall back on, the authorwe chose not to fall back on any myth.

  3. The writer wants to suggest that we did not need any pretension to state our point of view.

  4. The writer wants to suggest that we are living in difficult times. We have no easy solutions. Instead of falling on myths, we must create our own points of reference.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

True. Writer is suggesting that we are living in difficult times and that there are no easy solutions. Instead of falling back on myths, we must create our own reference points, not myths.

A cursory glance through the passage leads you to think that the author

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. demonstrates great respect for the political class in general

  2. upholds the spirit of cynicism

  3. wants to institutionalize cynicism for greater good of society

  4. betrays a discernible disapproval of politicians


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The author talks of the ‘nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country’ and this betrays a discernible disapproval of politicians. This is our answer.

The author says the cynic of our own time is a different person. The chief difference that the author alludes to is because

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. today's cynic is a moron

  2. today's cynic is a pessimist

  3. today's cynic has no contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements

  4. today's cynic does not see cynicism as a social movement


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

Yes, unlike those of the cynics of ancient times, the contemporary cynics of our own time have no contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements. The author states it with adequate emphasis and leaves absolutely no doubt about it, but most of the other traits have remained by and large unchanged.

“Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism.” This statement of the author shows

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. his willing readiness to talk of 'advent of cynicism'

  2. his no-holds barred attitude towards cynicism

  3. his dislike for cynicism

  4. his grudging acceptance of cynicism as a necessary tool


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

This is largely true. He accepts cynicism as a necessary tool because he feels this tool of cynicism could rid our society of some of its more pressing ills.

What impression do you get about the writer of this passage?

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

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

  1. The writer is a reflective person.

  2. The writer himself is cynical about things around.

  3. The writer is yet to touch upon the real issue.

  4. The writer is a realist who is dismayed by the prevailing situation and wants to draw the attention of all who might care.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The writer is a realist who is dismayed by the prevailing situation. Lack of governance which is discernible even to ordinary mortals has led him to speak out. We get to see his concern for the failing delivery system.

- Hide questions