The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.9: Which of the following best summarizes the passage?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.8: Considering the passage, what could be a potential consequence of fencing the Indo-Myanmar border?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.7: According to the passage, what is a critical viewpoint regarding the fence?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.6 : Which of the following best describes the logical structure of the passage?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.5 : What is the author's tone regarding the Centre's decision to fence the Indo-Myanmar border?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.4 What is the central theme of the passage?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.3 In the passage, to whom does the pronoun 'they' in "the bond they share" refer?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.2 In the context of the passage, what does the term 'blunt instrument' most likely refer to?

The Union Government's recent decision to fence the 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border and end the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is more than a geopolitical maneuver; it's a move that tugs at the heartstrings of many who reside in India's Northeast. This policy, while underlined by security concerns, risks severing the deep-rooted social and cultural connections that have defined life along this porous border. The backdrop is complex: Since the Tadmadaw's coup in Myanmar in February 2021, the ensuing chaos has seen an influx of refugees into India, notably the persecuted Kuki-Chin people. This humanitarian crisis has rightly raised alarms in New Delhi over security, including concerns about the trafficking of arms and drugs. However, the proposed fencing, seemingly a straightforward solution, is a blunt instrument for a delicate situation.

At its core, this border issue is about people. The Kukis in Mizoram and Manipur, who share kinship with Myanmar's Chin community, view this fence as a barrier to their age-old relationships. The opposition from Mizoram’s Chief Minister Lalduhoma and civil society groups underscores this sentiment. The bond they share with their kin across the border is not just about land; it's about shared history, culture, and family ties.

The Centre's approach also seems at odds with India's nuanced diplomacy with Myanmar. Historically, India has engaged with Myanmar's regime for strategic reasons, notably for its cooperation against Northeast insurgents.

Contrastingly, in Manipur, the government's portrayal of the crisis overlooks these nuanced realities. Accusations of illegally settling immigrants by the Kuki chiefs not only simplifies a complex issue but also sows seeds of division and misunderstanding.

The reality is, this border cuts through more than just land; it slices through communities, families, and shared histories. In the quest for security, we must not lose sight of the humanity that defines these frontiers. India's Northeast has long been a tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, often delicately balanced. The proposed fencing threatens to unravel this fabric, creating more problems than it solves.

In this context, the Centre's decision needs a revaluation. A more humane and considerate approach, one that respects the intricate web of relationships and considers the socio-cultural impact, is crucial. Security concerns are valid, but they should not overshadow the human element that is so vital in this region.

As India continues to navigate its strategic and security interests, it is paramount that we do not lose our empathy and understanding of the human stories that unfold along our borders. The government must reconsider its decision, balancing security with sensitivity, ensuring that the quest for peace does not come at the cost of the human connections that have stood the test of time. This fence, intended to protect, must not become a barrier that alienates.

Q.1 What can be inferred about the Centre's decision to fence the Indo-Myanmar border?