College students are preoccupied by the fact that:

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – II
College students today often act as if they believed that work in large organizations, and beyond that, work in general, could not be basically satisfying (or, at times, even honest), but is primarily a way to earn a living, to find a place in the social order, and to meet nice or not–so–nice people.
The relation of education to later life should be a dialectical and critical one. If, however, one result of going to college is to become alienated from work per se and defeatist about the possibility of altering one’s relation to it, then it seems to me one ought to re–examine academic institutions themselves. 
In the spring of 1955, several hundred interviews were done (at the behest of Time magazine) with seniors at twenty colleges throughout the country, most of them colleges of distinction. The seniors were supposed to be reasonably representative, but what this was taken to mean and how it was applied at different colleges and universities varied greatly. A good many student leaders were chosen, a good many bright people, but hardly any women were included. When I first examined the interviews and now again when I have once more gone over them, I have been struck by what appears to be a not quite conscious ambivalence toward work in large organizations. Nevertheless, the majority are planning to enter large organizations in pursuit of their careers: big corporations, big governments, big law offices, and so on. Only a few seek independence in their work, either in terms of old fashioned ideals of entrepreneurship or in terms of the desire to become a foreign correspondent, to enter politics, or to follow some other individualistic or exotic calling.
And yet, when these young people are asked about their lives outside of work, a very different picture emerges. There, bigness and scale are definitely not valued. Only a tiny fraction wants to head for the metropolis, even if their careers might make such a location convenient. They want the suburbs – not later, after some bachelor independence in the big city, but now, on graduation. The great majority either is already married or plan to get married soon (even if there is no special one in mind at the moment); they plan to start having children at once and to begin building a community–centred life in the suburbs. They envisage a two–car, but usually not a two–career family, in which the prospective wife will be active in the parent– teacher association, with assistance from the husband, and in which both spouses will concern themselves with a manageable bit of real estate in a suburban neighbourhood in which they can at once be active and hope to make a difference. It does not occur to them that they might be gifted and energetic enough to make a difference even in a big city. Rather, they want to be able to work through a face–to–face group – the post collegiate fraternity of the small suburbs.
Correspondingly, the very emphasis on family life, which is one of the striking and, in so many ways, attractive qualities of young people today, is an implicit rejection of large organization. The suburban family, with its garden, its barbecue, its lack of privacy in the open–plan house, is itself a manifesto of decentralization, even though it makes use of centralized services such as television, clinics, chain stores, and House Beautiful. The wish to build a nest, even if a somewhat transient one, is a striking feature of the interviews, in contrast with the wish to build a fortune or a career, which might have dominated some comparable interviews a generation earlier.

What was the most significant observation made from the interviews that were conducted at twenty colleges throughout the country?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – II
College students today often act as if they believed that work in large organizations, and beyond that, work in general, could not be basically satisfying (or, at times, even honest), but is primarily a way to earn a living, to find a place in the social order, and to meet nice or not–so–nice people.
The relation of education to later life should be a dialectical and critical one. If, however, one result of going to college is to become alienated from work per se and defeatist about the possibility of altering one’s relation to it, then it seems to me one ought to re–examine academic institutions themselves. 
In the spring of 1955, several hundred interviews were done (at the behest of Time magazine) with seniors at twenty colleges throughout the country, most of them colleges of distinction. The seniors were supposed to be reasonably representative, but what this was taken to mean and how it was applied at different colleges and universities varied greatly. A good many student leaders were chosen, a good many bright people, but hardly any women were included. When I first examined the interviews and now again when I have once more gone over them, I have been struck by what appears to be a not quite conscious ambivalence toward work in large organizations. Nevertheless, the majority are planning to enter large organizations in pursuit of their careers: big corporations, big governments, big law offices, and so on. Only a few seek independence in their work, either in terms of old fashioned ideals of entrepreneurship or in terms of the desire to become a foreign correspondent, to enter politics, or to follow some other individualistic or exotic calling.
And yet, when these young people are asked about their lives outside of work, a very different picture emerges. There, bigness and scale are definitely not valued. Only a tiny fraction wants to head for the metropolis, even if their careers might make such a location convenient. They want the suburbs – not later, after some bachelor independence in the big city, but now, on graduation. The great majority either is already married or plan to get married soon (even if there is no special one in mind at the moment); they plan to start having children at once and to begin building a community–centred life in the suburbs. They envisage a two–car, but usually not a two–career family, in which the prospective wife will be active in the parent– teacher association, with assistance from the husband, and in which both spouses will concern themselves with a manageable bit of real estate in a suburban neighbourhood in which they can at once be active and hope to make a difference. It does not occur to them that they might be gifted and energetic enough to make a difference even in a big city. Rather, they want to be able to work through a face–to–face group – the post collegiate fraternity of the small suburbs.
Correspondingly, the very emphasis on family life, which is one of the striking and, in so many ways, attractive qualities of young people today, is an implicit rejection of large organization. The suburban family, with its garden, its barbecue, its lack of privacy in the open–plan house, is itself a manifesto of decentralization, even though it makes use of centralized services such as television, clinics, chain stores, and House Beautiful. The wish to build a nest, even if a somewhat transient one, is a striking feature of the interviews, in contrast with the wish to build a fortune or a career, which might have dominated some comparable interviews a generation earlier.

If the author is to counsel a youngster, he will go by which of the following statements?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – II
College students today often act as if they believed that work in large organizations, and beyond that, work in general, could not be basically satisfying (or, at times, even honest), but is primarily a way to earn a living, to find a place in the social order, and to meet nice or not–so–nice people.
The relation of education to later life should be a dialectical and critical one. If, however, one result of going to college is to become alienated from work per se and defeatist about the possibility of altering one’s relation to it, then it seems to me one ought to re–examine academic institutions themselves. 
In the spring of 1955, several hundred interviews were done (at the behest of Time magazine) with seniors at twenty colleges throughout the country, most of them colleges of distinction. The seniors were supposed to be reasonably representative, but what this was taken to mean and how it was applied at different colleges and universities varied greatly. A good many student leaders were chosen, a good many bright people, but hardly any women were included. When I first examined the interviews and now again when I have once more gone over them, I have been struck by what appears to be a not quite conscious ambivalence toward work in large organizations. Nevertheless, the majority are planning to enter large organizations in pursuit of their careers: big corporations, big governments, big law offices, and so on. Only a few seek independence in their work, either in terms of old fashioned ideals of entrepreneurship or in terms of the desire to become a foreign correspondent, to enter politics, or to follow some other individualistic or exotic calling.
And yet, when these young people are asked about their lives outside of work, a very different picture emerges. There, bigness and scale are definitely not valued. Only a tiny fraction wants to head for the metropolis, even if their careers might make such a location convenient. They want the suburbs – not later, after some bachelor independence in the big city, but now, on graduation. The great majority either is already married or plan to get married soon (even if there is no special one in mind at the moment); they plan to start having children at once and to begin building a community–centred life in the suburbs. They envisage a two–car, but usually not a two–career family, in which the prospective wife will be active in the parent– teacher association, with assistance from the husband, and in which both spouses will concern themselves with a manageable bit of real estate in a suburban neighbourhood in which they can at once be active and hope to make a difference. It does not occur to them that they might be gifted and energetic enough to make a difference even in a big city. Rather, they want to be able to work through a face–to–face group – the post collegiate fraternity of the small suburbs.
Correspondingly, the very emphasis on family life, which is one of the striking and, in so many ways, attractive qualities of young people today, is an implicit rejection of large organization. The suburban family, with its garden, its barbecue, its lack of privacy in the open–plan house, is itself a manifesto of decentralization, even though it makes use of centralized services such as television, clinics, chain stores, and House Beautiful. The wish to build a nest, even if a somewhat transient one, is a striking feature of the interviews, in contrast with the wish to build a fortune or a career, which might have dominated some comparable interviews a generation earlier.

The author suggests that the younger generation

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – II
College students today often act as if they believed that work in large organizations, and beyond that, work in general, could not be basically satisfying (or, at times, even honest), but is primarily a way to earn a living, to find a place in the social order, and to meet nice or not–so–nice people.
The relation of education to later life should be a dialectical and critical one. If, however, one result of going to college is to become alienated from work per se and defeatist about the possibility of altering one’s relation to it, then it seems to me one ought to re–examine academic institutions themselves. 
In the spring of 1955, several hundred interviews were done (at the behest of Time magazine) with seniors at twenty colleges throughout the country, most of them colleges of distinction. The seniors were supposed to be reasonably representative, but what this was taken to mean and how it was applied at different colleges and universities varied greatly. A good many student leaders were chosen, a good many bright people, but hardly any women were included. When I first examined the interviews and now again when I have once more gone over them, I have been struck by what appears to be a not quite conscious ambivalence toward work in large organizations. Nevertheless, the majority are planning to enter large organizations in pursuit of their careers: big corporations, big governments, big law offices, and so on. Only a few seek independence in their work, either in terms of old fashioned ideals of entrepreneurship or in terms of the desire to become a foreign correspondent, to enter politics, or to follow some other individualistic or exotic calling.
And yet, when these young people are asked about their lives outside of work, a very different picture emerges. There, bigness and scale are definitely not valued. Only a tiny fraction wants to head for the metropolis, even if their careers might make such a location convenient. They want the suburbs – not later, after some bachelor independence in the big city, but now, on graduation. The great majority either is already married or plan to get married soon (even if there is no special one in mind at the moment); they plan to start having children at once and to begin building a community–centred life in the suburbs. They envisage a two–car, but usually not a two–career family, in which the prospective wife will be active in the parent– teacher association, with assistance from the husband, and in which both spouses will concern themselves with a manageable bit of real estate in a suburban neighbourhood in which they can at once be active and hope to make a difference. It does not occur to them that they might be gifted and energetic enough to make a difference even in a big city. Rather, they want to be able to work through a face–to–face group – the post collegiate fraternity of the small suburbs.
Correspondingly, the very emphasis on family life, which is one of the striking and, in so many ways, attractive qualities of young people today, is an implicit rejection of large organization. The suburban family, with its garden, its barbecue, its lack of privacy in the open–plan house, is itself a manifesto of decentralization, even though it makes use of centralized services such as television, clinics, chain stores, and House Beautiful. The wish to build a nest, even if a somewhat transient one, is a striking feature of the interviews, in contrast with the wish to build a fortune or a career, which might have dominated some comparable interviews a generation earlier.

Which is not false as per the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

The author is most likely to agree with the statement that

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

The author is least likely to agree with the statement that

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

Which of the following statements is not true as per the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

The unprecedented expansion of the language press was due to (I) political and technological reasons (II) the effective communication of the political leaders on the freedom struggle (III) the good use of the organic bond forged during the freedom struggle (IV) the language press playing a crucial rule in moulding the politics of the new rulers

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – III
Any survey of the Indian press cannot but reflect the different stages of growth and development that Indian democracy has gone through in the last 50-60 years. When freedom came, the press was proud of its role, as the bulk of the fraternity had actively participated or contributed to the awakening of the people through different phases of the struggle against foreign rule. The press, particularly those owned by the Indians, served as an auxiliary of the freedom struggle. With each phase of the national movement, it moved forward and faced the consequences for doing so.
An overwhelming number of newspapers at that time were published in the Indian language whereas the more affluent and well-established were the British-owned newspapers, mostly reflecting the views and actions of the colonial ruler. The language newspapers, on the other hand, reflected the nationalist viewpoint. By their very origin and activity, these newspapers were extremely badly off economically. In contrast, the English language papers were well-placed.
The transfer of power upset this arrangement. Those who came to power had so long depended mainly on the language newspapers to communicate to the millions, their main weapons, in fighting the foreign rule. When power was transferred from the colonial ruler to the national leaders, this linkage between the press and politics did not break down. Rather, it took a new form. The press, by and large, supported the new dispensation, though it did not spare the rulers whenever differences arose. Particularly on the issue of the bloodbath that accompanied the partitioning of the country, the press was normally divided. However, after the first phase, the press on its own formulated and accepted norms which helped strengthen a democratic approach, untainted by communal hatred. The press as a whole stood for communal harmony in the new setup. It is worth measuring the role of the Indian press in the building of the democratic order.
The regularisation of the formation of the linguistic States, as a result of the State Reorganisation Commission of 1956, marked a watershed for Indian journalism. Although the language newspapers experienced a sudden spurt in their development on the morrow of Independence, it was the formation of the linguistic States which shook them out of the old grooves and the leading ones in every language group blossomed into first class newspapers. In circulation, size and content, there was a marked improvement. More than the English language newspapers, most of the leading journals in different languages became the virtual mouthpiece of the puling establishment.
This phenomenal expansion of the language press was mainly due to two reasons: political and technological. An overwhelming majority of the language press had grown up along with the struggle for independence, as its active organ. The political leaders, on their part, grew up into effective communicators in the freedom struggle. After the State reorganisation in the mid-Fifties, when many of the leaders of the freedom struggle days took over the reins of administration, it was but natural that the leaders of the newly-recognised State Governments should try their best to establish a rapport with the press, particularly the language press of the region. This political bond did not mean that the press became the docile camp follower of the new establishment. But the organic bond that had been forged during the freedom struggle came into good use during this period as the language press, by and large, played a crucial role in moulding the politics of the new rulers.
This new development of the regional press brought about a marked change in the focus both in news presentation and the comments on contemporary events. The newspapers, by and large, concentrated on provincial or regional politics with a progressively conspicuous change of emphasis from national to provincial news- from Centre to State politics. This shift, however, did not make much difference so far as the content was concerned. Instead of the excitement in Parliament and the doings of the Central Government, it was certainly a change in the scenario for the newspapers particularly in the languages, but not necessarily in the content of the news and comments presentation to the readers.
Since the preoccupation of the newspapers was at the regional level and was mostly political related to power, there was a noticeable absence of other developments whether at the Central or the State level. No doubt in this very period many items concerning environment found their way into the newspapers but this was mainly due either to the striking event of the controversy such as the Sardar Sarovar dam or because such issues threw up thousands and lakhs of people whom even politicians engaged in mundane politicking could hardly ignore. In a sense, environment as a news issue has forced itself into the-newspapers, rather than due to the foresight and perspicacity of the newspapers themselves.
This shift in the press focus to the politics of the regional or state level has also had an effect on the content of the newspapers. One of the features of our national press during the freedom struggle was the extraordinary attention to what is called "foreign" news as distinct from domestic news.
The fact that Jawaharlal Nehru himself was at the very epicentre of power and that he was throughout aware of the interplay of national and international happenings, the Indian press did take up international issues seriously and the national - newspapers posted correspondents abroad. But in course of time, most of the newspapers - with, of course, honourable exceptions- have withdrawn their correspondents and come to depend by and large on the wire services, National and International, mostly Western.
The ownership pattern of the press has undergone striking changes. At the time of Independence, the prosperous were a few connected largely to the British-owned or controlled newspapers. They had the best-paid staff, advanced technology and indirect government patronage. Most of the Indian language newspapers which participated in the freedom struggle or stood by it were poorly financed, with primitive printing arrangements.
After Independence, two developments took place: first, the Nationalist Press, though materially weak, got a boost and the new political elite became aware of the power of the press in the running of the new edifice of freedom. Although still weak in terms of resources, these newspapers found a free field of activity and independence that they had never enjoyed before.
The second development was that most of the British - owned newspaper establishments sold off their assets and overnight these papers became Indian-owned. The change in the pattern of ownership entailed new developments in the newspaper world.

The change rendered by the advent and development of the regional press is (I) the significant change in the attention bestowed in the news presentation and comments on contemporary events (II) concentration on regional or provincial politics (III) change from Central to State politics (IV) the change in the news content and comments

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – III
Any survey of the Indian press cannot but reflect the different stages of growth and development that Indian democracy has gone through in the last 50-60 years. When freedom came, the press was proud of its role, as the bulk of the fraternity had actively participated or contributed to the awakening of the people through different phases of the struggle against foreign rule. The press, particularly those owned by the Indians, served as an auxiliary of the freedom struggle. With each phase of the national movement, it moved forward and faced the consequences for doing so.
An overwhelming number of newspapers at that time were published in the Indian language whereas the more affluent and well-established were the British-owned newspapers, mostly reflecting the views and actions of the colonial ruler. The language newspapers, on the other hand, reflected the nationalist viewpoint. By their very origin and activity, these newspapers were extremely badly off economically. In contrast, the English language papers were well-placed.
The transfer of power upset this arrangement. Those who came to power had so long depended mainly on the language newspapers to communicate to the millions, their main weapons, in fighting the foreign rule. When power was transferred from the colonial ruler to the national leaders, this linkage between the press and politics did not break down. Rather, it took a new form. The press, by and large, supported the new dispensation, though it did not spare the rulers whenever differences arose. Particularly on the issue of the bloodbath that accompanied the partitioning of the country, the press was normally divided. However, after the first phase, the press on its own formulated and accepted norms which helped strengthen a democratic approach, untainted by communal hatred. The press as a whole stood for communal harmony in the new setup. It is worth measuring the role of the Indian press in the building of the democratic order.
The regularisation of the formation of the linguistic States, as a result of the State Reorganisation Commission of 1956, marked a watershed for Indian journalism. Although the language newspapers experienced a sudden spurt in their development on the morrow of Independence, it was the formation of the linguistic States which shook them out of the old grooves and the leading ones in every language group blossomed into first class newspapers. In circulation, size and content, there was a marked improvement. More than the English language newspapers, most of the leading journals in different languages became the virtual mouthpiece of the puling establishment.
This phenomenal expansion of the language press was mainly due to two reasons: political and technological. An overwhelming majority of the language press had grown up along with the struggle for independence, as its active organ. The political leaders, on their part, grew up into effective communicators in the freedom struggle. After the State reorganisation in the mid-Fifties, when many of the leaders of the freedom struggle days took over the reins of administration, it was but natural that the leaders of the newly-recognised State Governments should try their best to establish a rapport with the press, particularly the language press of the region. This political bond did not mean that the press became the docile camp follower of the new establishment. But the organic bond that had been forged during the freedom struggle came into good use during this period as the language press, by and large, played a crucial role in moulding the politics of the new rulers.
This new development of the regional press brought about a marked change in the focus both in news presentation and the comments on contemporary events. The newspapers, by and large, concentrated on provincial or regional politics with a progressively conspicuous change of emphasis from national to provincial news- from Centre to State politics. This shift, however, did not make much difference so far as the content was concerned. Instead of the excitement in Parliament and the doings of the Central Government, it was certainly a change in the scenario for the newspapers particularly in the languages, but not necessarily in the content of the news and comments presentation to the readers.
Since the preoccupation of the newspapers was at the regional level and was mostly political related to power, there was a noticeable absence of other developments whether at the Central or the State level. No doubt in this very period many items concerning environment found their way into the newspapers but this was mainly due either to the striking event of the controversy such as the Sardar Sarovar dam or because such issues threw up thousands and lakhs of people whom even politicians engaged in mundane politicking could hardly ignore. In a sense, environment as a news issue has forced itself into the-newspapers, rather than due to the foresight and perspicacity of the newspapers themselves.
This shift in the press focus to the politics of the regional or state level has also had an effect on the content of the newspapers. One of the features of our national press during the freedom struggle was the extraordinary attention to what is called "foreign" news as distinct from domestic news.
The fact that Jawaharlal Nehru himself was at the very epicentre of power and that he was throughout aware of the interplay of national and international happenings, the Indian press did take up international issues seriously and the national - newspapers posted correspondents abroad. But in course of time, most of the newspapers - with, of course, honourable exceptions- have withdrawn their correspondents and come to depend by and large on the wire services, National and International, mostly Western.
The ownership pattern of the press has undergone striking changes. At the time of Independence, the prosperous were a few connected largely to the British-owned or controlled newspapers. They had the best-paid staff, advanced technology and indirect government patronage. Most of the Indian language newspapers which participated in the freedom struggle or stood by it were poorly financed, with primitive printing arrangements.
After Independence, two developments took place: first, the Nationalist Press, though materially weak, got a boost and the new political elite became aware of the power of the press in the running of the new edifice of freedom. Although still weak in terms of resources, these newspapers found a free field of activity and independence that they had never enjoyed before.
The second development was that most of the British - owned newspaper establishments sold off their assets and overnight these papers became Indian-owned. The change in the pattern of ownership entailed new developments in the newspaper world.