English Language clat secitonal 11

Passage (Q.1 – Q.5): At the heart of the most prominent theories of physics lies a concept that is remarkably appealing for a philosopher: the theory of the unity of all things. This is the idea that everything in the universe is connected and interdependent – from the smallest particles to the largest structures, and across all levels of organisation in between. It might seem like the stuff of spiritualism, but this idea is taken seriously by physicists because it’s at the core of two of the most important theories that we have: relativity and quantum mechanics.

Physicists use the term ‘monism’ to describe the belief that there is a fundamental unity in nature, and that this unity underpins everything. Monism is opposed to dualism, which is the belief that there are two fundamental kinds of things in the universe – usually mental and physical. Monism, then, is a kind of ‘all is one’ philosophy. It’s an idea that’s been around for thousands of years, and can be found in ancient Greek, Indian and Chinese thought. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) was one of the most famous proponents of monism. He argued that God and the natural world were one and the same thing. He also believed that everything in nature was determined – that is, that everything happens necessarily, because it follows from the laws of nature.

Spinoza’s monism had a profound impact on later thinkers, including Albert Einstein. Einstein was drawn to the idea of unity in nature, and to the idea that everything could be explained through a few fundamental principles.

It’s said that he had a portrait of Spinoza on his study wall. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is based on the idea that space and time are not two separate things, but are aspects of a single entity known as spacetime. This is the idea of the unity of space and time. What’s more, Einstein’s theory describes the way that the force of gravity arises because spacetime is warped by massive objects. The warping of spacetime is itself a kind of unity – it implies that the fabric of the universe is connected, so that a change in one place can affect the whole. Quantum mechanics, the other great theory of modern physics, is also fundamentally monistic. In fact, the unity of things is even more important in quantum theory than it is in relativity. One of the key insights of quantum mechanics is that things at the subatomic level cannot be treated as individual, separate entities. Rather, particles are described by ‘wave functions’ that specify the probability of a particle being in a particular place at a particular time. These wave functions are not ‘real’ things in the way that particles are, but they are something that underpins everything in the universe.

One of the most famous experiments in the history of physics is the double-slit experiment. In this experiment, particles are fired at a screen with two slits in it. On the other side of the screen, a detector registers where the particles hit. But when the experiment is performed, something strange happens. The pattern of hits on the detector is not what you would expect if the particles were simply travelling through the two slits as separate entities. Instead, the pattern is one that suggests that the particles are interfering with one another, like waves. This experiment – and many others like it – led to the development of the idea of ‘entanglement’, which is the idea that particles can be so connected that they behave as a single entity, even when they’re separated by vast distances.

Passage (Q.6 – Q.10): Indian archaeology is not a spontaneous development of the historical processes that were innate to India but a by-product of colonial rule. However, Indians did develop their own conceptions about the past through art, literature, philosophy, and metaphysics, which do offer alternative perspectives and enrich archaeological theories. Archaeology was institutionalized in India by the colonial British rulers, and after Indian independence in the 1940s, it is being promoted by Indian government establishments, induced to a limited extent by nationalist and regionalist fervor. The British colonial system developed an interest in the history and culture of India for several reasons. While Indologists had a lot of praise for Indian culture; a section of the colonial system criticized the Indian past. The colonial system greatly impacted on many spheres of modern India. The intervention of the colonial system in historical knowledge production and the struggles against the capitalist forces led to the development of nationalist and leftist schools of thought in Indian historiography.

The Archaeological Survey of India (hereafter ASI), established during colonial rule in 1861, is the central agency that manages nationally important archaeological heritage. State governments and universities have their own frameworks for conservation and archaeological research. In the post-liberalization era, a few nongovernmental agencies are also involved in heritage conservation and research,such as the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH). In the recent past, there has been an increased focus on heritage for its use in tourism promotion and economic development. Hence, tourism departments are also willing to invest in archaeology. This development could be due to the neo-liberal economic changes in India in the post-1980 period. Several heritage buildings across India have been put to tourism use, for example, in the towns of Udaipur, Jaipur, and Kochi. The number of museums is also gradually increasing, with private participation. As argued by Hancock, this development is also boosted by the longing for roots and socio-political needs in the urban context, not merely by economic interests. All the major metropolitan cities have heritage commissions for listing and managing heritage monuments, although they do not have much financial support. India is rich in archaeological vestiges, and yet preservation is problematic due to ad nauseam urbanization, lack of funds, and population pressure, for example. Archaeology often clashes with real estate and livelihood interests of the common people, who are unhappy when their property is 'taken over' for heritage conservation. The preservation of archaeological monuments in and near rock quarries is difficult as these areas are controlled by powerful groups. Innumerable archaeological sites and mounds across India are being destroyed due to development pressures. Many of the archaeological sites and the sculptural vestiges identified in the twentieth century no longer exist. In some parts of India, antiquities are dug out from archaeological sites, such as Chandraketugarh in West Bengal and the river near Karur in Tamil Nadu, for sale in antique markets. Salvage excavations, a proper management system, documentation, and the relocation of unprotected sculptures to safer museum environments are some of the essential steps required.

Passage (Q.11 – Q.15): Abdur Rahman’s successors found it difficult to maintain the fearful degree of state supremacy that he had imposed on Afghanistan. Although every Afghan government aspired to achieve the same level of power and centralization attained by the Iron Amir, few succeeded. While twentieth-century technology provided them with better weapons, communications, and transport, none were able to similarly impose their will on the people of Afghanistan. Those Afghan leaders who would best succeed during the next century employed a “Wizard of Oz” strategy. They declared their governments all-powerful but rarely risked testing that claim by implementing controversial policies. Conversely, the leaders who were most prone to failure and state collapse were those who assumed that they possessed the power to do as they pleased and then provoked opposition that their regimes proved incapable of suppressing. The periodic and often-rapid collapses of state power in Afghanistan during the twentieth century had their roots in the persistence of violence at the top of the system. Indeed, changes of power frequently appeared to be a throwback to the old, bloody tanistry system in which the right to rule demanded the elimination of all other rivals. Following Abdur Rahman’s peaceful death in 1901, every succeeding Afghan head of state for the next one hundred years would either die violently at home or be driven into exile abroad. One might assume such a sanguinary record would have induced increasingly greater caution in the application of state power by every new ruler, but over time the opposite proved the case. State violence during the last quarter of the twentieth century dwarfed anything experienced during its first third but was no more successful. One reason for this was that after the fall of the monarchy in 1973, each succeeding regime had a weaker claim to political legitimacy than its predecessor in the eyes of ordinary Afghans. Such regimes compensated for this defect by increasingly resorting to force to maintain their authority. After 1980, armed conflicts and social disruptions became the norm. These reached unprecedented heights because each rival faction had an international patron willing to provide it with a seemingly endless supply of weapons and money. Afghanistan became a stage for a series of proxy wars in which Afghan blood would be shed in the name of ideologies that few Afghans shared. The outcome was a level of destruction far beyond what the Afghans could have accomplished themselves and spawned conflicts that they lacked the capacity to control or resolve on their own. The Afghan people would have the unenviable distinction of experiencing oppression at the hands of both a radical socialist regime and a reactionary Islamist one. Neither had any respect for the wishes of the Afghan people, who would fall victim to their respective ideologies. The worst evil of civil war, Hobbes’s cancer of the body politic that could destroy society itself, was let loose. As a consequence, the seemingly all-powerful centralized state that held Afghanistan in its thrall in 1901 would be reduced to a powerless shell by 2001.

Passage (Q.16 – Q.20): The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling, which decriminalises adultery, is a progressive and much-needed step towards gender equality and individual autonomy. The court held that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised adultery and made it punishable with imprisonment of up to five years, is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of equality and privacy. The law was based on the premise that women are the property of their husbands and that adultery is an offence against the husband’s property rights. The law did not recognise the agency of women and treated them as passive objects of male desire. It also perpetuated the notion of male honour and female chastity, which are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms and values. The law discriminated against women by holding them responsible for the breakdown of marriage and by denying them the right to pursue their own desires and aspirations. The court’s ruling is significant as it recognises the right of individuals, both men and women, to engage in consensual sexual relationships outside of marriage. The ruling challenges the patriarchal notion of marriage as a contract between families and affirms the principle of individual autonomy and self-determination. The court acknowledges that adults are capable of making their own choices and that the state has no right to interfere in their private lives unless there is a compelling public interest.

The ruling is also a significant step towards gender equality as it holds men and women equally responsible for adultery. Under the previous law, only men could be prosecuted for adultery, while women were treated as passive victims. The law reinforced the stereotype of women as the weaker sex and denied them agency and responsibility. The court’s ruling recognises that women are capable of making their own choices and that they are equal partners in any relationship, including extramarital ones. The court’s ruling also has implications for the larger debate on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. The ruling affirms the principle of individual autonomy and the right to pursue one’s own desires and aspirations, regardless of societal norms and values. It recognises the diversity of human sexuality and the need to respect and celebrate that diversity. The ruling challenges the notion that there is only one “normal” way of being sexual and that anything outside of that is deviant or abnormal.

However, the ruling does not address the larger issue of marital rape and the lack of legal protection for women within marriages. While the ruling acknowledges the agency of women and their right to pursue their desires and aspirations, it does not guarantee their safety and security within the institution of marriage. The ruling also does not address the larger issue of gender inequality and the discrimination that women face in various spheres of life. Thus, the Supreme Court of India’s ruling on adultery is a progressive and much-needed step towards gender equality and individual autonomy. The ruling challenges the patriarchal notion of marriage as a contract between families and affirms the principle of individual autonomy and self-determination. The ruling recognises that adults are capable of making their own choices and that the state has no right to interfere in their private lives unless there is a compelling public interest. The ruling also has implications for the larger debate on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. However, the ruling does not address the larger issues of gender inequality and the lack of legal protection for women within marriages.

Passage (Q.21 – Q.24): Robert E. Lucas Jr., a contrarian Nobel laureate in economics who undergirded conservative arguments that government intervention in fiscal policy is often self-defeating. In awarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1995 to Professor Lucas, the fifth winner in economics from the University of Chicago in six years, the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences described him as “the economist who has had the greatest influence on macroeconomic research since 1970.” While he propounded a number of groundbreaking if sometimes controversial theories, Professor Lucas was best known for his theory of “rational expectations,” advanced in the early 1970s in a critique of macroeconomics. In that critique, he challenged John Maynard Keynes’s long-established doctrine that government could manipulate the economy to achieve certain outcomes through reflexive interventionist policies, such as changing interest rates or taking other steps to increase or curb inflation or reduce unemployment. In the real world, Professor Lucas maintained, consumers and businesses make their decisions on the basis of rational expectations drawn from their own past experiences. “His idea was that macroeconomic models grounded in lots of equations are based primarily on past behavior,” said David R. Henderson, a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in California and an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. “But if people learn from what government does” and respond accordingly in their own self-interest, “those models will poorly predict future behavior.” As a result, Professor Lucas said, government economic policies can be self-defeating by failing to achieve their intended outcomes. He also favored eliminating taxes on capital gains, or on any income derived from capital. And he embraced supply-side economics, which calls for increasing the supply of goods and services while cutting taxes to promote job creation, business expansion and entrepreneurial activity. The same principles that encouraged economic growth in rich countries could be applied to economic development in indigent ones.