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.
All of the following cannot be inferred from the passage, except
- A.
the flag occupies a more significant place in western democracies than it does in India
- B.
the nation-state idea is limited to Europe
- C.
Indian bureaucrats are very zealous about the existing rules
- D.
the flag occupies the same place both in democracies and dictatorships
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
Concept: A valid inference must follow necessarily from facts the passage explicitly states — not from assumptions, over-generalisations, or content the passage never mentions. When asked which single option "cannot be inferred... except", each of the four claims must be checked against the actual text; only the one claim with direct textual support survives, and the rest are eliminated as unsupported.
Application: The passage draws an explicit contrast — "In India, unlike in western democracies, the flag had thus far been treated by the political class as a...guarded emblem of the state," available automatically to ministers, bureaucrats, and the judiciary but "not so the common people." It further states that in the western democracies of this comparison, the flag "has long been an accepted currency of civil passion" — i.e. a freely and widely used part of ordinary civic and commercial life, invoked even at moments of national grief (as with the post-9/11 stars-and-stripes). A symbol that ordinary citizens have long owned, displayed, and drawn emotional meaning from occupies a more significant place in their civic life than a symbol legally confined to state functionaries and available to citizens only on three sanctioned days a year, as the flag had been in India until this reform. So the passage's own comparison directly supports the claim that the flag held a more significant place among ordinary people in western democracies than it did in India.
Cross-check — the nation-state idea being limited to Europe: the passage only questions the primacy of the European idea of the nation-state and its symbolism; it never claims the idea exists nowhere outside Europe.
Cross-check — Indian bureaucrats being very zealous about existing rules: the passage describes the state's institutional guarding of the flag as official policy, not the personal temperament of bureaucrats toward rules in general.
Cross-check — the flag occupying the same place in democracies and dictatorships: the passage discusses only democracies; dictatorships are never mentioned, so no such comparison can be drawn from it.
Result: only the claim about the flag's greater established significance in western democracies compared with India follows directly from the text — that is the one option that can be inferred.