Question

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

We found in both India and Pakistan that Partition was difficult to confront and talk about. In order to talk about it, we would have to acknowledge that both sides were equally guilty, in case you can use that word. For instance, it wasn’t like the Holocaust, where you had the Jews and the Nazis. Of course, you had a range of ordinary people who allowed the violence against the Jews or benefited from it – like companies that used concentration camp labour. Unlike the Holocaust, in Partition, both sides were guilty of violence. Both sides were aggressors and victims. Often, there were histories of violence within families, which they silenced. There could have been history of complicity in the violence they subjected their own women to. Or you might have known about somebody who was attacked, but you were too helpless to stop it – and you, therefore, let that history go. Or you might have participated in violence yourself.

Which of the following would strengthen the author’s stance?

विकल्प

• There is still no proof about who was the assailant and who was the victim.

• Those who were victims had been assailants but those who were assailants were necessarily not victims.

• Silencing the histories of violence was done to safeguard the honour of the families.

• Partition was difficult to talk about because talking about it meant talking about the history of India.

Answer 1

Silencing the histories of violence was done to safeguard the honor of the families.

Explanation:

According to the passage, there is still no proof about who was the assailant and who was the victim and Partition was difficult to talk about because talking about it meant talking about the history of India is out of scope and will not help in strengthening the author’ stance. 
Those who were victims had been assailants but those who were assailants were necessarily not victims is an untrue statement and will necessarily weaken the author’s argument. Hence, it can also not be considered. Refer to the following lines from the passage, “Both sides were aggressors and victims. Often, there were histories of violence within families, which they silenced. There could have been history of complicity in the violence they subjected their own women to”. The reason why histories might not have been talked about was to safeguard the honour of the families. 
Thus, silencing the histories of violence was done to safeguard the honour of the families is the correct answer.