Read the passages given below and answer the questions. It is not time yet to…
2024
Read the passages given below and answer the questions.
It is not time yet to wear the national flag on your sleeve, but signs are that we might be getting there soon. Thanks to the passion of one citizen, it has become legally possible for ordinary Indians to freely fly the Tricolour. In 1993, Naveen Jindal thought that flying the national colours atop one’s place of work gave everyone a “sense of belonging” but the authorities would not agree. Eight years later, having petitioned three prime ministers and waged a long legal battle, Mr Jindal has at last been granted his wish. The archaic flag code has been changed. The Union cabinet has decreed that the citizen shall now have the right to fly the flag on any day. In India, unlike in western democracies, the flag had thus far been treated by the political class as a zealously-guarded emblem of the state. From ministers to bureaucrats to the higher-level judiciary, all arms of the state were allowed the automatic privilege of flaunting the flag, but not so the common people. Citizens wanting to express their
identity or indeed their loyalty in a world becoming increasingly globalised and homogenised had, ironically, to seek the government's prior blessings to do so. Even this grudging nod was granted only for the duration of special days, namely, Independence Day, Republic Day and the Mahatma’s birth anniversary. The thinking behind this ‘saving the flag from the citizen’ was a throwback to the days of the Raj when carrying the Tricolour was often regarded as an unacceptable symbol of defiance by our political masters. As has often happened in our history, however, this legacy was thoughtlessly upheld in the vastly changed post-Raj scenario.
In other words, even as India became a democratic republic, the state continued to treat the people's right to bear their national colours with suspicion. Under the obsessive pretext of preserving the honour and dignity of the flag, the assumption survived that the ordinary citizen of the realm could not be trusted to respect it. Wisely, the powers that be have recognised the anachronism of such a mindset. But there is a further danger which must be guarded against. In time, as flag-waving is exploited commercially by the forces of the free market, puritans will cry foul at the crassness of the spectacle. But this is not a matter, primarily, of aesthetics. At the same time, the detractors should note that countries, where the national flag has long been an accepted currency of civil passion, have hardly been buried in an avalanche of flag-abuse. The post-September 11 boom in the sale of stars-and-stripes might have been a dream come true for the shopping malls of America, but it was also a
symbol of a people hanging together in the hour of their greatest grief. Of course, there are those who will argue that the flag code debate does not go far enough. That, in fact, it's time to go further by questioning the central assumption on which it is premised: The primacy of the European idea of the nation-state and its antiquated symbolism. But till such time as we continue to inhabit the fragile Nationalist dream, the flag will remain an evocative totem. And, as with America, patriotism will continue to be the preferred refuge of scoundrels, citizens and the marketplace.
According to the passage, the denial of the people's right to fly the flag on any day was
- A.
totally justified
- B.
without any reason
- C.
totally unjustified
- D.
a violation of fundamental rights
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
Concept: In a Reading Comprehension “according to the passage” question, the correct choice is the one that matches the author's own evaluative language about the event being asked about — not a generic paraphrase and not an outside assumption. The task is to locate the tone-bearing words the author uses to characterise the thing in question, and pick the option those words support.
Application: The passage repeatedly frames the earlier denial of the right to fly the flag in negative, critical terms: it calls the old flag code “archaic”, says the restriction was upheld only through an “obsessive pretext” of protecting the flag's honour, and states that “the powers that be have recognised the anachronism of such a mindset.” Each of these phrases tells the reader the author sees the earlier denial as having no sound basis — it survived only through habit and suspicion of ordinary citizens, not through any real justification.
“totally justified” contradicts the passage's critical tone toward the restriction (“archaic”, “anachronism”) and cannot be supported.
“without any reason” overstates the case: the passage does name a rationale for the restriction (suspicion of citizens, a colonial-era instinct to treat flag-flying as defiance) — the author's complaint is that this rationale was invalid, not that none existed.
“the violation of fundamental rights” is not something the passage claims — the change is described as an executive/legal relaxation (“the Union cabinet has decreed”), and the constitutional ‘fundamental rights’ framing never appears in the text.
Cross-check: Reading the passage's verdict words together — “archaic”, “anachronism”, “obsessive pretext” — confirms the author is describing a restriction that lacked valid grounds, which is exactly what “totally unjustified” states.