As India enters the 75th year of its Independence, my mind goes back

25 years, to its 50th anniversary and Queen Elizabeth’s visit. Inviting

her to celebrate India’s Independence was a generous gesture
considering Britain’s past imperial role. It also demonstrated Britain’s
hope that the past could stay in the past, and a future partnership of
two great democracies be established. The visit ran into rough
weather. To woo the British-Sikh vote, a significant factor in several
constituencies, the British high commissioner was instructed to
negotiate a visit to Amritsar and the Golden Temple. IK Gujral, the
then prime minister (PM), made it clear that he didn’t want the Queen
to go to Amritsar unless she was willing to apologise for
the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
 
Eventually, in an embarrassing compromise as far as Gujral was
concerned, it was agreed the Queen would visit Jallianwala Bagh and
lay a wreath, but she would not apologise. During the visit, the Duke
of Edinburgh didn’t make things any easier by questioning the official
figures of the number of people killed in the massacre when General
Reginald Dyer ordered his soldiers to open fire on a peaceful crowd
trapped in the garden. The Queen’s husband was reported as saying
that General Dyer’s son had told him that the figure was much lower
— hardly a reliable source. Before coming to India, the Queen visited
Pakistan. This did not please the external affairs ministry. During the
visit, the British foreign minister, Robin Cook, offered to mediate
between India and Pakistan. With the unhappiness over Amritsar and
the anger over Cook’s blunder, the press coverage of the tour became
extremely negative, so much so that the Palace issued a statement
saying that the Queen thought the visit was going very well. British
PM, Boris Johnson, seems to have learnt the lesson from this sorry
story: Don’t push too hard, don’t ride roughshod over Indian
sensitivities if you want to negotiate successfully, as he does.
Q1. Which of the following most accurately represents the
main theme of the argument?
A. The lessons from Queen Elizabeth’s visit for Boris Johnson. 
B. India-UK: The evolution of post-colonial relationship.
C. The importance of Queen Elizabeth’s apologizing for the
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. 
 D. The compromise between IK Gujral and Queen Elizabeth for
apologizing at Jallianwala Bagh. 
 
Q2. Which of the following would cast the most doubt on the points
mentioned by the author in the above passage?
A. The British negotiators wanted the Queen to visit Amritsar and the
Golden Temple to apologize to the Sikh population there. 
B. The Queen did not apologize in Jallianwala Bagh for the blunder
General Dyer had done. 
C. The son of General Dyer was not a reliable source of information
to confirm the number of people who had died on the date of incident.
D. The Queen’s visit to Pakistan did not please the external affairs
ministry of Britain. 
 
Q3. Which of the following best describes the conclusion drawn by
the author of the above passage?
A. India’s invitation to the Queen to celebrate the 50  Indian
th

Independence Day was a generous gesture but turned out to be a sorry

story. 
B. The questioning of death figures by the Duke of Edinburgh
contributed to the visit becoming a sorry story. 
C. Boris Johnson seems to have learnt the lesson from the author’s
story since he is not pushing too hard and riding offshoot. 
D. None of the above. 
 
Q4. The author’s claim “With the unhappiness over Amritsar and the
anger over Cook’s blunder, the press coverage of the tour became
extremely negative, so much so that the Palace issued a statement
saying that the Queen thought the visit was going very well” plays
which of the following roles in the author’s argument?
A. It is the premise of the author’s argument. 
B. It is the assumption of the author’s argument.
C. It is the conclusion of the author’s argument.
D. Both A & C. 
 
Q5. Which of the following if true, would not strengthen the points
made by the author’s argument?
1. Current PMs should learn from the blunders of the past PMs.
2. Boris Johnson seems to have learned from the story the author talks
about in the passage.
3. Inviting post colonizers as guests on Independence Day signifies a
generous gesture on the part of post colonies. 
Choose your answer from the below mentioned codes;
A. 1 & 3
B. 2 & 3 
C. All of the above. 
D. None of the above. 
 

Answers
 
1. Correct Answer: B
Option A is not  the right answer since the passage tries to cover the
relationship between India and UK and mentions about Boris Johnson
only towards the end. Option C is not the correct answer since it only
focusses on one part of the passage. Option D is incorrect since this
option also focusses on only one part of the passage. 
 
2. Correct Answer: A
Option A is the correct answer since the British administrators wanted
the Queen to arrive in Amritsar and Jallianwala Bagh and not in the
Golden Temple. Also they wanted  her to visit to woo the British-
Sikh votes and not to apologise to the sikhpopulation. Thus, the
answer is option A.
 
 
3. Correct Answer: C
By referring to the last para of the passage we can conclude that the
conclusion of the passage revolves around Boris Johnson.  Since only
one option talks about Boris Johnson, the correct answer has to be
option C.
 
 
4. Correct Answer: A
The author uses the point mentioned in the passage to support the
overall conclusion of the passage as discussed in the last option and
thus the statement mentioned in the question has to be a premise.
Thus, option A is correct.
 
 
5. Correct Answer: D
All the points mentioned in the question find their relevance to the
passage and thus are all true and strengthen the passage. Therefore,
the answer ha stobe option D.