Critical Reasoning for CLAT, Passage- Chinese intrusion

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments to an all-party meet on Friday, claiming there had neither been any intrusion by China nor was any intruder present, expectedly caused a political storm. Not only was the violence on the night of June 15 that claimed 20 Indian soldiers triggered by China erecting structures on India’s side of the LAC in the Galwan Valley, Chinese troops still remain present on Indian territory elsewhere in Ladakh, including on the northern bank of Pangong Lake. After the problems with his remarks were highlighted by the Opposition, the Prime Minister’s Office was moved to issue a much needed clarification on Saturday, stating the PM was only referring to the situation in the Galwan Valley “as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces” that foiled a Chinese transgression. Even if the PMO attributed the political storm to “a mischievous interpretation”, it is more than clear that the PM did not choose his words carefully. In fact, his remarks have already been seized upon by the Chinese state media, and were seen as endorsing Beijing’s claims that its troops did not cross the LAC and justifying the People’s Liberation Army’s recent actions. The MEA issued its own statement on Saturday, reiterating that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and erected structures across the line.

While it should be obvious that any speech that requires no less than two clarifications has serious problems with its messaging, the controversy has only underlined the government’s poor communication on the border issue. The tragic loss of lives followed more than six weeks of tensions in the Galwan Valley. During this time, the public was kept in the dark about what was transpiring along the LAC. True, sharing every detail in the public domain is not possible when it comes to negotiating sensitive issues of national security. Indeed, the solution to the current crisis, and the disengagement that is needed urgently at various points along the LAC, can make progress only through diplomacy. At the same time, a blanket of silence hardly serves the government’s interests. The absence of timely and credible information will only fuel speculation and alarm. The silence has also triggered unseemly domestic politics and a blame-game, at a time when India is confronting possibly its biggest national security challenge since Kargil. Friday’s all-party meet was certainly a step in the right direction, even if it perhaps came a few weeks too late. India’s China policy may be approaching as significant an inflection point as 1988, which marked the normalisation of ties after 1962. Crafting the way ahead for the relationship after the worst violence since 1967 will require a measured appraisal of how to purposively engage India’s biggest and most powerful neighbour. This cannot happen by being in denial or by attempting to obscure facts. The first step to a solution is a realisation of the nature and the magnitude of the problem.

1. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
a. Chinese troops didn’t cross the LAC
b. PM was not aware of the Chinese intrusion.
c. The author belongs to the congress party.
d. PM had to clarify his speech on the situation of LAC more than once.

2. Which of the following can’t be inferred from the passage?
a. The author is a member of the congress party.
b. The author acknowledge the fact that sharing every detail in the public domain is not possible when it comes to negotiating sensitive issues of national security.
c. Many soldiers from Indian side died in the ongoing incursion with the Chinese troops.
d. PM clarified that his statement was made in relation to the Galwan valley only.
3. What is the role played by the claim that sharing every detail in the public domain is not possible when it comes to negotiating sensitive issues of national security in the argument?
a. It acts as a premise of the argument.
b. It acts as a conclusion of the argument.
c. Neither A nor B
d. Both A and B

4. Which of the following statement is the author most likely to agree with?
a. The Government of India should cut-off its ties with the Chinese government.
b. The governments should establish proper diplomatic channel to find the solution of the dispute.
c. The PM shouldn’t have clarified his statements made on Chinese intrusion.
d. The PM should stop all the trade relation with China for the time the tension persists.

5. What is the role played by the claim that PM’s remarks have already been seized upon by the Chinese state media, in relation to the conclusion?
a. It supports the conclusion by providing an example.
b. It supports the conclusion by providing a contradictory example.
c. It weakens the conclusion by providing an example.
d. It is unrelated to the conclusion.

 

 

CLAT Gurukul

Answers
1. D
2. A
3. A
4. B
5. A

Critical Reasoning for CLAT, Passage- Chinese intrusion

The Bhima Koregaon cases also throw a spotlight on so many state institutions. The UAPA, and its ubiquitous use is a travesty in a liberal democracy. The lawyer, Abhinav Sekhri, has, in a recent article (“How the UAPA is perverting the Idea of Justice”, Article14.com) pointed out two basic issues with the law. The law is designed in a way that it makes the question of innocence or guilt almost irrelevant. It can, in effect, inflict punishment without guilt. The idea that people like Teltumbde or the exemplary Bharadwaj cannot even get bail underscores this point. And second, the safeguards of our criminal justice process work unevenly at the best of times. But in the case of the UAPA, the courts have often, practically, suspended serious scrutiny of the state. What legitimises this conduct of the court is two things: The broader ideological construction of the “Left” as an existential threat. And the impatience of society with procedural safeguards. The UAPA has in some senses become the judicial version of the encounter — where the suspension of the normal meaning of the rule of law is itself seen as a kind of justice.

The state has been going after Varavara Rao for his entire life. He is a complicated figure. He is an extraordinarily powerful poet who made visible the exploitative skeins of Indian society; his poetry, even in translation, cannot fail to move you out of a complacent slumber. He was formidable in consciousness raising. Of this group, his ideological excusing of horrendous Maoist excesses, has been indefensible and disturbing. His moral stance once promoted a deeply meditative critique on the morality of revolutionary violence by Apoorvanand (“‘Our’ Violence Versus ‘Their’ Violence”, Kafila.online).

But the farce that the Indian state is enacting in pursuing Varavara Rao in the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions is proving him correct in two ways. First, in his insistence that what is known as bourgeois law is a sham in its own terms; the rule of law indeed is rule by law. And second, that repression and degradation is indeed the argument of a despotic state. Where does one turn when law, political parties and the state turn their back on justice?

Source with edits and revisions: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/varavara-rao-covid-19-anand-teltumbde-uapa-act-bhima-koregaon-6511031/

Questions

1. Which of the following can be validly inferred from the passage?
a. The UAPA law is the only law which makes the makes the question of innocence or guilt almost irrelevant
b. The UAPA act is being used by the judiciary to suppress resistance to the state.
c. The Judiciary is complicit with the government to repress and discredit any voice against the state.
d. Laws like UAPA protect meticulous scrutiny of the state’s actions and claim in the court.

2. Which of the following is the author most likely to disagree with?
a. Laws like UAPA can’t be suspended with as they serve a bigger purpose.
b. Sometime innocents have to suffer the excesses of the government for just saying truth.
c. Varavara Rao’s detention exposes the truth about the claim of India being a liberal democracy.
d. Individual often finds they are alone if the state machineries start undermining justice.

3. Which of the following is the main point of the passage?
a. Varavara Rao is a complicated Left figure in India.
b. Varavar Rao, and others like him are being harassed by the Indian state for their ideological beliefs.
c. There is no justice to be found in India.
d. Courts and Political Parties are complicit in repressing any dissent in the country.

4. Which of the following explains the claim made by the author about the UAPA being the judicial version of the encounter?
a. In a police encounter the accused never gets a chance to prove his innocence however under UAPA the court favours the state thereby causing judicial encounter.
b. An encounter is never questioned by the courts giving police the green signal to undermine the rule of law.
c. Judicial encounter under UAPA and police encounter are same as the accused rights gets violated in both the cases
d. Rule of law is designed in a way that no accused gets a fair trial in India

5. Which of the following, if true, would further prove Varavara Rao’s claim that Indian state has become despotic?
a. Varavara Rao was not granted a leave from the detention even after he got infected from covid-19, though he received all the medical attention required, in his cell only.
b. A group of reporters were not allowed to enter into the area where the Chinese incursion happened at the border.
c. The UAPA law doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of unlawful activities, that the legislation aims to prohibit.
d. The Government of India put a ban on publication of any news related to India-China border dispute.

Answers

 

 

CLAT Gurukul

1. D
2. A
3. B
4. C
5. D