Political theorists no doubt have to take history of injustice, for example, untouchability, seriously. The concept of historical injustice takes note of a variety of historical wrongs that continue into the present in some form or the other and tend to resist repair. Two reasons might account for resistance to repair. One, not only are the roots of injustice buried deep in history, injustice itself constitutes economic structures of exploitation, ideologies of discrimination and modes of representation. Two, the category of historical injustice generally extends across a number of wrongs such as economic deprivation, social discrimination and lack of recognition. The category is complex, not only because of the overlap between a number of wrongs, but because one or the other wrong, generally discrimination, tends to acquire partial autonomy from others. This is borne out by the history of repair in India.
(1) What is the main idea that we can infer from the passage?
(a) Untouchability in India has not been taken seriously by political theorists.
(b) Historical injustice is inevitable in any society and is always beyond repair.
(c) Social discrimination and deprivation have their roots in bad economies.
(d) It is difficult, if not impossible, to repair every manifestation of historical injustice.
(2) On the basis of the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
1. Removal of economic discrimination leads to removal of social discrimination.
2. Democratic polity is the best way to repair historical wrongs.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
