In the end, a degree of sanity prevailed. The militant Hindus who had vowed to breach a police cordon and start the work of building a temple to the god Ram at the disputed site of Ayodhya decided to respect a Supreme Court decision barring them from the are a. So charged have Hindu-Muslim relations in India become in recent weeks, as the declared deadline of March 15th neared, that a clash at Ram"s supposed birthplace might well have provoked bloodshed on an appalling scale across the nation. It has, unfortunately, happened often enough before. But the threat has not vanished. The court"s decision is only an interim one, and the main Hindu groups have not given up on their quest to build their temple. Extreme religious violence, which seemed in recent years to have faded after the Ayodhya-related explosion of 1992-93, is again a feature of the political landscape. Though faults lie on both sides (it was a Muslim attack on Hindus in a train in Gujarat that started the recent slaughter), the great bulk of victims were, as always, Muslims. Once again, educated Hindus are to be heard inveighing against the "appeasing" of Muslims through such concessions as separate constitutional status for Kashmir or the right to practice Islamic civil law. Once again, the police are being accused of doing little or nothing to help Muslim victims of rampaging Hindu mobs. Once again, India"s 130m Muslims feel unequal and unsafe in their own country. Far too many Hindus would refuse to accept that it is "their own country" at all. The wonder of it, perhaps, is that things are not worse. While the world applauds Pakistan for at last locking up the leaders of its extreme religious groups, in India the zealots still support, sustain and to a degree constitute the government. The BJP, which leads the ruling coalition, was founded as a political front for the Hindu movement. It is simply one, and by no means the dominant, member of what is called the Sangh Pariwar, the "family of organizations". Other members of the family are much less savoury. There is the VHP, the World Hindu Organization, which led the movement to build the Ram temple. There is the Bajrang Dal, the brutalist "youth wing" of the VHP. There is substantial evidence that members of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal helped to organize the slaughter of hundreds of Muslims in Gujarat after 58 Hindus were killed on a train as they returned from Ayodhya.
单选题 It can be learnt from the text that the ruling party in India
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"从印度现在执政的党派我们可以获悉…"。从第3段第3行可以看出,执政党觉得Hindus运动有一种政治性的前沿,可见"他们把一些宗教性的冲突扩大为政治性的问题",答案选项表达了此意。而选项"没怎么谋杀穆斯林"与原文意义相反,其他两项与原文信息无关,或是对原文某些词汇的编造,所以皆不符合题意。
单选题 What does the writer wants to illustrate with "a Muslim attack on Hindus on a train in Gujarat"?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"作者引用在火车上一个穆斯林人袭击Hindus是为了说明…"。从第1自然段最后两句的主旨可以看出两个教派之间的冲突是经常发生的,答案选项表达此意思。而选项"最高法庭的决定"不说明本题的主旨,至于"警察的残忍",原文指的是党派中年轻义派人士的残暴,其余选项在原文没有提及,是对原文意思的编造,所以皆不符合题意。
单选题 Towards the issue of Hindu-Muslim relations, the writer"s attitude can be said to be
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"关于Hindu与Muslim之间的关系问题,作者的态度是…"。综观全文,第1自然段作者使用真实的时态阐述文章,第2段第3行"though"指"尽管失误是双方的",是主观的判断和假设,第3段作者从持中立的态度来看待问题的两个方面,所以作者的态度主要是"客观的"。而选项"悲观的","恐吓的"以及"有偏见的"都是对原文意思的曲解,皆不符合题意。
单选题 We can learn from the text that both Hindus and Muslims are
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"对于Hindus与Muslims,我们从本文得到的推论是…"。从全文可以看出,双方都比较看重政治和法律的问题,对政治和法律都相当的敏感,答案选项表达了此意思。而选项"对对方都有报复心理的"从原文得不到这种推论,"他们都是相当顺从的"与第1段的信息是矛盾的,"双方都尊重神教"原文指的不是双方都尊重,而只是Hindus尊重,所以皆不符合题意。
单选题 Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the text?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"根据原文,下面那项是正确的…"。从原文第1段第1句中的"sanity"可见Hindus对他们的行为更加理智了。而选项"沮丧的后果将会面临着极度的宗教团体"原文无此信息,"印度穆斯林的安全完全取决于Hindus的善意"这种是宗教性的问题而不是好意与恶意的问题,"非法的政府应该对印度当前的情形负责"与原文意思相反,所以皆不符合题意。