Ans- 1(a)- The statement ‘ to live anyhow is better than to not at all’ is taken from a short

story written by the author named Anton Chekhov a Russian writer. This story generally
revolves around a banker and a young lawyer who have conflicting opinions on the topic of
capital punishment. The story stars with a scene of an autumn night where we are introduced
with the first character of the story, the banker , one of the protagonist of the story, now old
and not quite wealthy as before was remembering a similar autumn evening fifteen years ago
where he hosted a party which involved various other clever guests and at that party those
guests were having some interesting conversation. One particular conversation was about the
viability of capital punishment, the intellectuals and journalists which were a part of the group
were of the notion that death penalty should not be a course of punishment and to corroborate
their claim they asserted that death penalty was outdated and unsuitable for Christian states.
Some of the panelists of that discussion were of the view that death penalty should be replaced
by the punishment of imprisonment for life. The banker was not in favor of this opinion, the
banker was of the view that, on the basis of morality he saw death penalty to be more moral
than life imprisonment as the capital punishment kills the man at once whereas the
imprisonment kills him slowly day by day. The other guests regarded both as immoral for they
thought both have the same motive that is to take away life and were assertive of the notion
that ‘state cannot take away what it cannot restore when it wants to’, this statement gives a
glimpse of the theme of the story which is “meaningfulness of life”. As the story moves on the
second character of the story or the second protagonist is introduced which is a young lawyer
aged 25, he also had the same opinion that both the punishment are immoral but had he to
choose between them he would gladly take imprisonment for like because he believes “ To live
anyhow us better than to not live at all”. This conflicting opinion among the two protagonists
of the story gave rise to the bet between them. The instance of the bet showed a hint of irony
where at initial time the banker was so excited with the bet that he rammed his hand on the
table whereas to the end of the story he despises the bet so much so that he called it ‘a cursed
bet’. The banker bets the lawyer that he would pay him 2 million to stay in a solitary
confinement for two years, the greed sets in the mind of lawyer as he accepts the sentence of
the banker but adds to that ten more years of confinement. This addition looks to me as
conflicting to the to the theme of the story as the moral was of meaningfulness of life but the
addition of ten more years contradicts that. The condition of the bet were not literal but were
that the lawyer could leave anytime and if he leaves 2 minutes prior to the time of completion
of the said sentence the banker would win the bet. As the story proceeds the various stages of
confinement sets in and the tone of the story is clear in those situations. The phases were
initially of bitterness and depression but soon followed the intellectual brilliance of the lawyer.
The lawyer devoted his sentence to study rather to study different languages and was now clear
in his approach towards the word. At the end of the story the banker was not as rich as he was
at the start as he poured all his money towards gambling and at the stock exchange which this
loss also provides us with another moral that gambling is an evil of the society. The banker
decides to kill the layer as to recuse himself from the bet. He approached towards the garden
where the layer was confined and here the author introduced another character with no
importance whatsoever the watchmen. The banker enters the room and saw a piece of paper
written by the lawyer that he does not want the 2 million now and will leave the room before
the stipulated time. The main theme of the story was illustrated in that note which said that the
human riches of life were more importance the material riches and the lawyer is now not a
greedy person he was before. The tone set in the story was of objective dry and unemotional
as the bet was maybe cursed and the 15 years of imprisonment was in vain.

Ans 1(b)- “The lost child” is a story written by ‘Mulk Raj Anand’ who was an Indian English
writer. The story, ‘the lost child’ is the story of a child who goes to a fair with his parents and
the story starts with a beautiful explanation of the emotions of the child. The story sets in the
spring season and the author describes the scene with great elegance. The boy was introduced
in the story at the start and with the phrase “a young boy brimming over with life and laughter’’.
The child’s joy came to a crescendo when he reached the fair. The child got attracted to
everything that was present there, the child wanted everything from the toys to the sweets but
hesitant because of the harsh and unpleasant attitude of his father. With the advance of the
family into the fair the mother tried to pacify the child and also tried to divert his attention
towards other things. The child got so distracted with his wishes to get all the toys that he used
to lag behind his parents and his mother had to shout at him to ask him to keep up the pace.
The story proceeds with the misery of the child as whatever he demanded was rejected by his
parents. As the family moved forward the child got demurred with the decorative items on the
display. The story suddenly shifts to a dark phase when the child then saw a snake- charmer.
He liked the music played by the charmer and wanted to stay for a while to listen to it but again
he was discouraged by his parents. Then he saw a roundabout swing and wanted to get a ride
on it. This time he could not resist himself and called for his parents. On getting no reply, he
turned to look at his parents but they were not there. The panic-stricken child made frantic
searches for his parents here and there but found them nowhere. Then he realised that he was
lost and separated from his parents. He began to weep bitterly and tried to console him by
offering many different things sold in the fair. He offered him sweets, balloons and garlands
but the child refused them all.

He kept sobbing, “I want my mother, I want my father.” Nothing could make him happy except
his parents. This end to the story provides an irony where at first the child was not happy toward
his parents and now any material greed that he had cannot fulfil his desire.

Ans 2(a)- “Tryst with destiny” considered as one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century
as the new and first prime minister of India was addressing the nation at the first night of
independence. This speech of Nehru was given in the parliament house of New Delhi in 1947.
India won independence from England on 15th august 1947 and at the stroke of midnight hour
same as the initial words of the speech Nehru gave this address to the assembly and to a new
nation. Nehru’s address can be seen as the decolonization of the spirit of India as every passage
of the speech suggest a new India with the belief of solidarity and with the spirit so as to stand
against and stand tall in the world as a free country. As the speech commences Nehru gives the
sense of pride where he is happy to announce to the nation and the world that India is now a
free and independent state and he said a moment came which comes in rare occurrence that a
nation long suppressed has now found it utterance. Nehru talked about the nation as a person
and referred it with the pronoun her so as to give a strong sense of honor to the nation. He talks
about the failures and success pf India as a nation in the past and her struggles as to defend
herself from the clutches of the british empire. Nehru declared that on that day India ender her
ill fortunes and discovered herself again. He was assertive of the face that the achievement of
that day were not the end but were the start of the new phase for India a phase where it was
seen as an opportunity to greater triumphs and achievements. Nehru asserted that freedom and
power brought responsibility to India and the responsibility rests upon the representatives to
create a nation that give a sense of sovereignty to the country and the endured pain of the
colonization should not befall the country now. He stated that he future is not of ease and
resting but now the actual task of representing a new nation is before them where in the service
of India the parliamentarians had to think about the service of billions who endured pain in the
british empire. Nehru gave a beautiful statement to gain solidarity in India like there was
solidarity against the british raj, he said “to the representative of the people of India I say, there
is no time for petty criticism, no time for ill will and no time to blame each other”. This
statement was said so as to ignite the sense of patriotism in the people.

Nehru continues to say that a new star has risen in Asia a star free from the burden of the
European dictators and a star which will stand forth after a long slumber against and struggle
and a new star which will shine again.

At the end Nehru felt that all Indians should work hard for the development of their dear nation.
Doing service to India means doing service to millions of poor people who suffer all over the
county. Nehru feels that the past is over and it is the future that has to be taken care of. It is for
the future generations that we have to dedicate ourselves. Nehru urges the people to labor and
to work hard to give reality to the dreams of the nation. Those dreams are not only for India
but for the entire world. According to Nehru. all the countries in the world are closely
connected. No one can live in isolation. Peace, freedom and prosperity are the common
property of all humanity. Nehru warns the people that disaster in one part of the world can
affect everyone else, because the world cannot be divided into small isolated pieces.

Ans 2(b)- The question whether lawyers are born or made is comprehensively described and
answered by Justice Hidayatullah in a text orated or written by him. Justice Hidayatullah was
the 11th chief Justice of India and also served as the Acting President of India in the year 1969.

On the question of whether lawyers are born or made Justice Hidayatullah, instead of getting
to a certain answer decided to arrive at a conclusion. J. Hidayatullah to derive at a conclusion
asked us as to what a lawyer is made up of and to answer that we had to understand what law
really is. According to J. Hidayatullah law is what is it is the rule of conducts and those rules
are enforceable towards the state. J. Hidayatullah describes the start of the law as the need of
reason, he decribes that law are corresponding to reason and reason is the life of law which
means law lives until there is reason and soundness in the society. Law is created by legislators
who are the representative of the people who knows the problem of the people but behind those
legislators are lawyers who are the real creator of those laws, the lawyers are the one who drafts
a law in its sense, a legislator just enacts a law. J. Hidayatullah asked the question that after the
enactment of the laws what is the need for lawyers, he explained that the laws are created to
give everyone an opportunity of equality and are created so that the strongest may not have his
way. He explained that lawyers are needed to enact laws in a proper manner a lawyer is needed
to elaborate the laws and to discover that on whose side does the law stands. J. Hidayatullah
explains that law sometimes means one thing and sometimes another the human tongue does
not express intellect and laws are expressed by human tongue and words sometime mean one
thing and sometimes the other. J. Hidayatullah gave an example of culpable homicide where
the law says murdering a man is a crime but at the same time has certain exception to a murder.

Justice Hidayatullah says that it is the duty of the lawyer to master the law, he says a lawyer is
a real lawyer when he knows his laws thoroughly. According to J. Hidayatullah a person may
have eloquence but it is not enough to be a good lawyer. He says that a successful lawyer is the
one who not only knows his law but also has the ability to present his law, as J. Hidayatullah
said law is so diverse that it would take men forever to learn every branch of law. J.
Hidayatullah says that a man cannot be born with knowledge but can be born with an aptitude
for it, he says an analytical mind and a desire of hard work depends upon person to person and
a person is born with those qualities.

In conclusion for the answer J. Hidayatullah says that he does not know how much time it
would take a lawyer to complete a principal but a great lawyer never stops learning, this
continuity is what makes his different from the others, he says that to succeed in the profession
of law a lawyer must not have doubt and this requires consistent hard work, study and patience.
J. Hidayatullah concludes that a person is not born with the intellect of these laws rather he
works, burns the midnight oil and knows and studies his law to become a great lawyer. J.
Hidayatullah concluded with the view that ‘Lawyers are made, not born”.