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, carrying and flying the national flag has always been
- A.
viewed as an act of defiance
- B.
regarded as an act of contempt
- C.
derided
- D.
looked at with suspicion
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: In a reading-comprehension "according to the passage" item, the correct option must be the wording the passage itself supports as the OVERALL, continuing state of affairs the stem asks about (here, flag flying "has always been") — not a phrase lifted from one narrower moment in the passage and mistaken for the general claim.
Application: the passage's own summary line states it directly — "even as India became a democratic republic, the state continued to treat the people's right to bear their national colours with suspicion." This describes the persistent, ongoing attitude the passage traces from the Raj era right through to "the democratic republic" — exactly the "has always been" span the stem asks about — and it matches the option that says the flag has been looked at with suspicion.
"Viewed as an act of defiance" — the passage uses the word "defiance" only for one specific period: how political masters saw the Tricolour "in the days of the Raj". It is not offered as the passage's general, continuing characterisation the stem asks for.
"Regarded as an act of contempt" — the passage never uses this word for citizens carrying or flying the flag; it instead calls the flag a "zealously-guarded emblem" kept for the state, which is a restriction, not contempt toward the citizen.
"Derided" — the passage never says flag flying was mocked or ridiculed; the only mockery it anticipates is future "crassness" if flag-waving gets commercially exploited, which is a separate, forward-looking worry, not a description of how carrying/flying the flag has always been treated.
Cross-check: re-reading the stem's "has always been" against the passage's own transition — Raj-era restriction on one hand, and "even as India became a democratic republic, the state continued to treat ... with suspicion" on the other — confirms suspicion, not defiance/contempt/derision, as the thread running through the whole passage.