The author says, ‘there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times'. Which of the following options tend to underline the difference forming the underlying theme of the passage?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

Would Forster have allowed even those two cheers if he had lived in our times?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

Why does Forster refer to parliament as 'talking shop'?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

In the second paragraph of the passage, there are few expression that seem to describe Forster's 'nuisance'. Identify them.

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

Towards the end of the passage, the author advises us to take nuisance with a statutory warning. What does this ‘statutory warning’ remind of?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

'He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with this belief'. What does this convey to you as you read the passage?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.

'As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.' Which opinion is he talking of revising?

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

Even Forster, a strong votary of democracy, did not give it a third cheer. He had just two cheers for democracy. There was no occasion for the third. At least that is what he thought and steadfastly clung on to that belief and died with that belief. Had he lived on to see our own brand of democracy, how could he have reacted to it? Would he have allowed even those two cheers for it now which he so willingly allowed in his own lifetime?
There is no anxiety to suggest that the grounds on which he allowed those two cheers to democracy in his life time are now missing. Cheers may be missing, certainly not the grounds. To understand that, we must know his reasons for those two cheers in the first place. The first cheer he allowed was because democracy had a parliament to flaunt which was unlike any other parliament under any other dispensation. For him parliament is or was a “Talking Shop” where a private member “makes himself a nuisance”. He values it “because it criticises and talks and because its chatter gets widely reported. So two cheers—one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism.” The positive of the ‘talking shop’ is that from the nuisance that a private member indulges in we may be able to cull some sense, even if accidentally. He spoke about yet another component of democracy which was no less important. Democratic forms of governments too use force to make you and me work, but used it sparingly. In other forms of government, the sword constantly dangled over your head to keep you at work. So, in a democracy you had intervals, no matter how brief, to engage in private thoughts.
But he had only two cheers for democracy and I fear we have no reason to grudge him that. We are possibly not in a better position to improve upon that, or to find fault with it, but if I were in his place I would have thought of a third cheer as well. On the two cheers as well, we may disagree with him on whether sense ever got talked; and in case we do so, we shall be giving vent to our own brand of cynicism. Besides, we must remember Forster was talking about parliament of his times when nuisance carried a great deal of sense whereas in our own parliamentary democracy the dividing line between sense and nonsense which Forster saw as nuisance is so thin that it becomes difficult to tell one from the other. Also, there is a qualitative difference between the nuisance of yore times and nuisance of our own times. I am not sure if he would have valued our brand of nuisance to allow a cheer for that. His nuisance was not injurious, whereas we have to take our nuisance with a statutory warning. As for the use of force, we may have to revise our opinion about it after the latest order of the apex court on the use of brutal force on the sleeping innocents at the Ram Lila Maidan.