Q1.Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow: (12)
DO YOU REMEMBER BOFORS?
1. My ex-boss Aveek Sarkar used to say about me, with a mixture of admiration and pity, that I am the only person he knew who understood Bofors. Both the admiration and the pity are - at least, in retrospect - easy to understand. He
admired me for understanding a scandal that was so complex that none of his other employees could even begin to comprehend it. But he pitied me for devoting so much time to an issue that - in the final analysis - was worth so little.
2. In my defence, I will also use an Aveek Sarkar - like qualified statement. Bofors was not really worth so little. It defined Indian politics at the end of the 1980s.Such was the impact of the scandal that it destroyed the greatest mandate ever awarded by an Indian electorate - Rajiv Gandhi’s 1984 election victory. Its impact can still be felt today as the Hindujas battle charges relating to the scandal in the Delhi courts.
3. You’ve probably forgotten what the Befors scandal was about. In 1986, the Indian army awarded a contract for the purchase and manufacture of howitzers to Bofors, a Swedish arms giant. To date, nobody, not even the worst critic of the deal, has suggested that there was anything wrong with the gun or that the choice of weapon was wrong. So that was never the issue.
4. But in 1987, Swedish radio suggested that bribes had been paid to secure the deal. A mature government would have sat back and waited for proof. But Rajiv’s team was young and inexperienced. It issued a self-righteous statement not only denying that any bribes had been accepted but also, that no commissions(normal in any deal, especially in the arms industry) had been paid.
5. The Swedish radio broadcast coincided with the imminent exit of V. P. Singh from the Cabinet. As Defence Minister, Singh had ordered an inquiry into the HDW submarine deal (swung by Indira Gandhi’s government), so reports of a scandal involving Rajiv’s regime were perfect to create a corruption issue out of nothing.
6. Because nobody had any evidence, the opposition resorted to lies and speculation. Rajiv had taken a bribe, somebody said. Sonia’s family had taken the money, somebody else added. No, it was Amitabh Bachchan who was the front-man. And so on. All of this was not only completely
unsubstantiated (then and now), but most of those who made these claims knew they were lies.
7. The only genuine breakthrough in the case came when Chitra Subramaniam of The Hindu got access to Bofors documents from Sweden. These documents showed that even though the government claimed that no commission had been paid, three companies had got money in connection with the deal. In subsequent articles, The Hindu identified one company as Pitco and suggested it was owned by the Hindujas. A second was called Svenska, and linked to Win Chadha, Bofors’ official
agent in India. A third was called AE Services, registered in Surrey, England, but the identity of its owners remained a mystery.
8. Rajiv was told that the scandal was part of a CIA plot to destabilize India. He had to fight the charges and those who investigated them. And so on.
9. As an inexperienced leader Rajiv wilted under pressure, his political opponents stepped up the personal attack. V.P. Singh claimed to have the number of Rajiv’s Swiss bank account. (He meant the number of the Pitco account).Ram Jethmalani claimed there was a strong circumstantial case against Rajiv. Leading news papers claimed that Sonia’s brother-in-law had got the money. And poor Amitabh became the focus of
the attack.
10. In retrospect, some things seem clear. One: Bofors had lied. It had claimed that there were no agents but had actually paid commission to three separate entities. Two: this was not such a big deal. Show me an arms deal over the last 50years where no commissions have been paid, and I’ll show you a unicorn. And three: a commission to an arms dealer is not proof of corruption unless you can show that the commission was used to influence the selection of the gun, or shared with a politician, general or bureaucrat. To date, nobody has demonstrated that.
11. But the Indian government launched an incredibly inept cover-up operation. Rajiv was told that to now admit that commissions had been paid by Bofors, would be tantamount to admitting that the deal was corrupt. (I never understood the logic of this advice. If we got the best gun and Bofors lied to us about the commission it paid, then why was this Rajiv’s fault?)
12. Bofors claimed that AE Services offered consultancy services. I went to its registered office in Surrey and found that it was only a post box. A company search revealed that it had no employees at all.
13. Looking back, it’s easy to see what had happened. The policy of the Indian
government was: no agents on defence deals. But this policy never works. So the big arms companies continued to hire agents. They just lied about hiring them and paid the commissions secretly to Swiss bank accounts and post boxes.
14. What we still don’t have is a shred of evidence that anybody who received any money from Bofors shared it with any public servant, let alone with Rajiv Gandhi. Despite all the anti-Hinduja publicity, I would be surprised if the CBI secures any kind of conviction against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not a crime to take a commission and the CBI has no proof that bribes were paid out of those commissions.
15. So, what does the whole sorry Borofs saga teach us? Several things. One: there is no limit to the irresponsibility of Indian politicians when it comes to their own advancement. They will say anything if it helps them get ahead. Two: we have wasted far too long on a case that amounts to nothing; bigger scams now occur everyday.
16. And three: nobody considered it worthwhile to defend a man who is dead and whose party is in opposition. Whatever else Rajiv Gandhi was - and in handling Bofors, he was both inexperienced and badly advised - he was completely innocent of the charges leveled against him. Sixteen years later, not one shred of evidence has surfaced.
17. And any politician who still uses Bofors to besmirch the good name of a dead man should be ashamed of himself.
a) Answer the following questions briefly: (9)
(i) Mention the impact of Bofors till date. (2)
(ii) How did the media try to prove that Rajiv Gandhi was corrupt? (1)
(iii) Name three companies to which commission had been paid. (2)
(iv) What picture of leaders does the Bofors saga paint? (2)
(v) In which year did the Indian army award a contract for Bofors guns and why? (2)
b) Find out the words from the passage which mean the same as: (3x1=3)
(i) soil/tarnish(Para17) (ii) recollection(para1) (iii) adoration(para1)
Section B Writing
Q2 The older generation is wonder-struck by the changed behaviour of the modern Indian women and their involvement in national and social affairs.Write an article on the awakening of Women.You are Edwin/Edla.
10M
Section C (Literature)
Q3 Read the extract given below and answer the questions that follow:
It would be an exotic moment,
Without rush, without engines;
We would all be together,
In a sudden strangeness
a) What is referred to as exotic? 1M
b) What is the normal way of the world? 1M
c) What sudden strangeness does the poet mention? 2M
Q4 Answer the following questions in 30-40 words each: 2x3=6M
a) How do you know that the poet does not advocate death and inactivity?
b) What is the sadness that the poet refers to?
Q5 Point out at least FIVE instances of unexpected reactions from the characters to others’ behaviour in the ”Rattrap”.(150words) 10M
Q6 Answer the following questions in 30-40 words each: 2x2=4M
a) From where did the peddler get the idea of the world being a rat -trap?
b) What doubts did Edla have about the peddler when she saw him for the first time?
Q7 Answer the following question in 125-150 words: 4M
”Take care of small things and big things will take care of themselves”. What is the relevance of this statement in the context of Antarctica?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CLASS XII E nglish SET B
Time Allowed:90mts. Max. Marks:50
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:
(12)
DO YOU REMEMBER BOFORS?
1. My ex-boss Aveek Sarkar used to say about me, with a mixture of admiration and pity, that I am the only person he knew who understood Bofors. Both the
admiration and the pity are - at least, in retrospect - easy to understand. He
admired me for understanding a scandal that was so complex that none of his other employees could even begin to comprehend it. But he pitied me for devoting so much time to an issue that - in the final analysis - was worth so little.
2. In my defence, I will also use an Aveek Sarkar - like qualified statement. Bofors was not really worth so little. It defined Indian politics at the end of the 1980s. Such was the impact of the scandal that it destroyed the greatest mandate ever awarded by an Indian electorate - Rajiv Gandhi’s 1984 election victory. Its impact can stil lbefelt today as the Hindujas battle charges relating to the scandal in the Delhi courts.
3. You’ve probably forgotten what the Befors scandal was about. In 1986, the Indian army awarded a contract for the purchase and manufacture of howitzers to Bofors, a Swedish arms giant. To date, nobody, not even the worst critic of the deal, has suggested that there was anything wrong with the gun or that the choice of weapon was wrong. So that was never the issue.
4. But in 1987, Swedish radio suggested that bribes had been paid to secure the deal. A mature government would have sat back and waited for proof. But Rajiv’s team was young and inexperienced. It issued a self-righteous statement not only denying that any bribes had been accepted but also, that no commissions (normal in any
deal, especially in the arms industry) had been paid.
5. The Swedish radio broadcast coincided with the imminent exit of V. P. Singh from the Cabinet. As Defence Minister, Singh had ordered an inquiry into the HDW submarine deal (swung by Indira Gandhi’s government), so reports of a scandal involving Rajiv’s regime were perfect to create a corruption issue out of nothing.
6. Because nobody had any evidence, the opposition resorted to lies and speculation. Rajiv had taken a bribe, somebody said. Sonia’s family had taken the money, somebody else added. No, it was Amitabh Bachchan who
was the front-man. And so on. All of this was not only completely unsubstantiated (then and now),but most of those who made these claims knew they were lies.
7. The only genuine breakthrough in the case came when Chitra Subramaniam of The Hindu got access to Bofors documents from Sweden. These documents showed that even though the government claimed that no commission had been paid, three companies had got money in connection with the deal. In subsequent articles, The Hindu identified one company as Pitco and suggested it was owned by the Hindujas. A second was called Svenska, and linked to Win Chadha, Bofors’ official
agent in India. A third was called AE Services, registered in Surrey, England, but the identity of its owners remained a mystery.
8. Rajiv was told that the scandal was part of a CIA plot to destabilize India. He had to fight the charges and those who investigated them. And so on.
9. As an inexperienced leader Rajiv wilted under pressure, his political opponents stepped up the personal attack. V.P. Singh claimed to have the number of Rajiv’s Swissbank account. (He meant the number of the Pitco account).Ram Jethmalani claimed there was a strong circumstantial case against Rajiv. Leading newspapers claimed that
Sonia’s brother-in-law had got the money. And poor Amitabh became the focus of the attack.
10. In retrospect, some things seem clear. One: Bofors had lied. It had claimed that there were no agents but had actually paid commission to three separate entities. Two: this was not such a big deal. Show me an arms deal over the last 50 years where no commissions have been paid, and I’ll show you a unicorn. And three: a commission to an arms dealer is not proof of corruption unless you can show that the commission was used to influence the selection of the gun, or shared with a politician, general or bureaucrat. To date, nobody has demonstrated that.
11. But the Indian government launched an incredibly inept cover-up operation. Rajiv was told that to now admit that commissions had been paid by Bofors, would be tantamount to admitting that the deal was corrupt. (I never understood the logic of this advice. If we got the best gun and Bofors lied to us about the commission it paid, then why was this Rajiv’s fault?)
12. Bofors claimed that AE Services offered consultancy services. I went to its registered office in Surrey and found that it was only a post box. A company search revealed that it had no employees at all.
13. Looking back, it’s easy to see what had happened. The policy of the Indian
government was: no agents on defence deals. But this policy never works. So the big arms companies continued to hire agents. They just lied about hiring them and paid the commissions secretly to Swiss bank accounts and post boxes.
14. What we still don’t have is a shred of evidence that anybody who received any money from Bofors shared it with any public servant, let alone with Rajiv Gandhi. Despite all the anti-Hinduja publicity, I would be surprised if the CBI secures any kind of conviction against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not a crime to take a commission and the CBI has no proof that bribes were paid out of
those commissions.
15. So, what does the whole sorry Borofs saga teach us? Several things. One: there is no limit to the irresponsibility of Indian politicians when it comes to their own advancement. They will say anything if it helps them get ahead. Two: we have wasted far too long on a case that amounts to nothing; bigger scams now occur everyday.
16. And three: nobody considered it worthwhile to defend a man who is dead and whose party is in opposition. Whatever else Rajiv Gandhi was - and in handling Bofors, he was both inexperienced and badly advised - he was completely innocent of the charges leveled against him. Sixteen years later, not one shred of evidence has surfaced.
17. And any politician who still uses Bofors to besmirch the good name of a dead man should be ashamed of himself.
a) Answer the following questions briefly: (9)
(i) Mention the impact of Bofors till date. (2)
(ii) How did the media try to prove that Rajiv Gandhi was corrupt? (1)
(iii) Name three companies to which commission had been paid. (2)
(iv) What picture of leaders does the Bofors saga paint? (2)
(v) In which year did the Indian army award a contract for Bofors guns and why? (2)
b) Find out the words from the passage which meanthe same as: (3x1=3)
(i) soil/tarnish(para17) (ii) recollection(para1) (iii) adoration(para1)
Q2Modern generation is strained and stressed out right from childhood on various counts.Write an article on the stressed out modern youth. 10M
Q3 Read the extract given below and answer the questions that follow:
It would be an exotic moment,
Without rush, without engines;
We would all be together,
In a sudden strangeness
a) What is referred to as exotic? 2M
b)What is the normal way of the world? 1M
c)What sudden strangeness does the poet mention? 1M
Q4 Answer the following questions in30-40 words each: 2x3=6M
a) What phenomenon does the poet invoke to say that there is life under apparent stillness?
b) What is the sadness that the poet refers to?
Q5.What made the peddler finally change his ways?(150words) 10M
Q6.Answer the following questions in 30-40 words each: 2x2=4M
a) How do you know that the peddler didn’t value the confidence reposed in him by the crofter?
b) What doubts did Edla have about the peddler when she saw him for the first time?
Q7 .Answer the following question in 125-150 words: 4M
How is the study of Antarctica useful to us?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
No comments:
Post a Comment