send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Direction: Read the given passage below and answer the questions. India’s abstention from voting on a UN Human Rights Council draft resolution, in March this year, on the “situation of human rights in Myanmar” needs closer examination. Co-sponsored by the European Union (EU) and Bangladesh which is a home to several victims, the resolution “expresses grave concern at continuing reports of serious human rights violations and abuses in Myanmar”, particularly in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, and calls for a full inquiry into these by the Council’s own mechanism and the International Criminal Court (ICC). In its follow-up explanatory statement, India’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Rajiv Kumar Chander, said that it would “only be counter-productive” to support “extensive recommendations regarding legislative and policy actions” and “threatening Myanmar with punitive action, including at the ICC, to which that state is not a signatory”. It is understandable that as a non-signatory of the Rome Statute, New Delhi would register its dissent against any punitive interventions by the ICC on another non-signatory country (Myanmar). However, what is deeply unfortunate is India’s continued diplomatic and moral passivity on the Rohingya crisis. Despite the Myanmar Army facing charges of serious war crimes, including genocide — according to a UN Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and several other international human rights organisations — India refuses to take a strong moral stand for the sake of maintaining cordial bilateral relations with Naypyidaw. India continues to toe Myanmar’s line on the issue, which harps on the “complexity” of the whole situation, lays emphasis on economic development rather than political rights for the Rohingya, lays stress on internal inquiries instead of international mechanisms, and even refuses to call the Rohingya community by its name. In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not even publicly condemned the horrible atrocities that the Rohingya have faced at the hands of Myanmar’s security forces. On his last visit to Myanmar in September 2017, he simply expressed concern at the “loss of lives of security forces and innocent people due to the extremist violence in Rakhine State”. There was no reference to the excessive and arbitrary force used by security forces on Rohingya civilians in response to the “extremist violence”. Radhika Coomaraswamy, who was a part of the three-member UN FFM, during a recent briefing, said, “Acknowledging that human rights violations have been committed, holding people accountable and reforming the Tatmadaw is the only way forward.” India, for its part, continues to maintain ties with the Myanmar armed forces (Tatmadaw), supplying them with combat hardware and imparting UN peacekeeping training. An edition of the India-Myanmar bilateral army exercise, IMBEX 2018-19, took place this January at Chandimandir.
Which of the following is/are a suitable assumption on the basis of the information provided in the given context?
I. Whether Myanmar is using some of its India-supplied weapons to maim non-combatant civilians in Rakhine State and other ethnic regions is a question that New Delhi has not asked so far. Further, Indian companies continue to invest in Myanmar, with several having direct links with Tatmadaw-owned businesses.
II. But India’s soft, backfoot approach is being increasingly seen by Bangladesh, which is hosting many Rohingya refugees, to be tilted in Myanmar’s favour.
III. India has so far refused to exert any pressure on Myanmar, instead choosing to balance ties with Dhaka and Naypyidaw by sending humanitarian aid to both.
IV. India’s core logic here is to “modernize” the Tatmadaw with the intent of securing its 1,640-km plus border with Myanmar and forge a sustainable strategic partnership at China’s doorstep. But, in this inflexible realpolitik approach, there is little space for end-user accountability and human rights.
None of the following.
Only I
Only II
Only III
Both I and IV
The correct answer is option 3, i.e. But India’s soft, backfoot approach is being increasingly seen by Bangladesh, which is hosting many Rohingya refugees, to be tilted in Myanmar’s favour. An assumption is a statement that is used as the premise of a particular agreement but may not be accepted otherwise. In simpler words an assumption is The given context draws attention towards the Rohingya issue and the nature of the governments (mainly India’s) reaction regarding the same. Option 2 is totally vague as the fact regarding Indian companies investing in Myanmar, with several having direct links with Tatmadaw-owned businesses is totally baseless and cannot be assumed from the given passage. Option 3 is a suitable assumption that can be assumed on the basis of the information provided. It talks about the soft, backfoot approach of India that can be understood as India continues to maintain ties with Myanmar by supplying equipments and this nature is being scrutinized by Bangladesh which can be understood from the facts stated that EU and Bangladesh which is a home to several (rohingya) victims expressed grave concern at continuing reports of serious human rights violations and abuses in Myanmar which India did not pay heed to. Option 4 can be rejected as the fact that India is supplying humanitarian aid to balance ties with Dhaka and Naypyidaw is nowhere evident from the given piece of information as a result it presents baseless claims and can be rejected. Option 5 can be rejected as it is too specific in terms of facts presented like 1,640-km plus border with Myanmar. Moreover, the core logic of ‘modernising the Tatmadaw’ and forging a sustainable strategic partnership at China’s doorstep is totally out of scope of the information presented. Thus, the most correct answer choice is option 3 and rest of the options can be rejected.
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses