CSS ENGLISH (Precis & Composition)

Nizar Hassan was born in 1960 and raised in the village of Mashhad, near Nazareth, where he has lived with his
family. He studied anthropology at Haifa University and after graduating worked in TV. Starting in 1990, he
turned to cinema. In 1994, he produced Independence, in which he pokes his Palestinian interlocutors about what
they think of the bizarre Israeli notion of their “independence”. They have stolen another people’s homeland and
call the act “independence”! Hassan dwells on that absurdity

As the world’s attention was captured by the news of Israel planning to “annex” yet a bit more of Palestine and
add it to what they have already stolen, I received an email from Nizar Hassan, the pre-eminent Palestinian
documentary filmmaker. He wrote to me about his latest film, My Grandfather’s Path, and included a link to the
director’s cut. It was a blessing. They say choose your enemies carefully for you would end up like them. The
same goes for those opposing Zionist settler colonialists. If you are too incensed and angered by their daily dose of
claptrap, the vulgarity of their armed robbery of Palestine, you would soon become like them and forget yourself
and what beautiful ideas, ideals, and aspirations once animated your highest dreams. Never fall into that trap. For
decades, aspects of Palestinian and world cinema, art, poetry, fiction, and drama have done for me precisely that:
saved me from that trap. They have constantly reminded me what all our politics are about – a moment of poetic
salvation from it all.

Nizar Hassan’s new documentary is one such work – in a moment of dejection over Israel’s encroachment on
Palestinian rights and the world’s complicity, it has put Palestine in perspective. The film is mercifully long,
beautifully paced and patient, a masterfully crafted work of art – a Palestinian’s epic ode to his homeland. A
shorter version of My Grandfather’s Path has been broadcast on Al Jazeera Arabic in three parts, but it must be
seen in its entirety, in one go. It is a pilgrimage that must not be interrupted

In its response to 9/11, America has shown itself to be not only a hyperpower but increasingly assertive and ready
to use its dominance as a hyperpower. After declaring a War on Terrorism, America has led two conventional
wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating its overwhelmingly awesome military might. But these campaigns
reveal something more: America’s willingness to have recourse to arms as appropriate and legitimate means to
secure its interests and bolster its security. It has set forth a new doctrine: the right of pre-emptive strike when it
considers its security, and therefore its national interests, to be at risk. The essence of this doctrine is the real
meaning of hyperpower.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently argued that the only option in the face of hyperpower is to offer wise
counsel. But increasingly this is a course that governments and people across the world have refused. The
mobilisation for war against Iraq split the United Nations and provoked the largest anti-war demonstrations the
world has ever seen. And through it all, America maintained its determination to wage war alone if necessary and
not to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments when they faithfully represented the wishes
of their electorates. Rather than engaging in debate, the American government expressed its exasperation. The
influential new breed of neoconservative radio and television hosts went much further. They acted as ringmasters
for outpourings of public scorn that saw French fries renamed ‘freedom fries’ and moves to boycott French and
German produce across America. If one sound-bite can capture a mood, then perhaps it would be Fox News’ Bill
O’Reilly. At the height of the tension over a second Security Council resolution to legitimate war in Iraq, Mr
O’Reilly told his viewers that the bottom line was security, the security of his family, and in that matter ‘There’s
no moral equivalence between the US and Belgium’. It is, in effect, the ethos of hyperpower articulated and made
manifest in the public domain of 24-hour talk. And America’s willingness to prosecute war has raised innumerable
questions about how it engages with other countries. Afghanistan has seen the removal of the Taliban. But there
are no official statistics on the number of innocent civilians dead and injured to achieve that security objective.
The people of Afghanistan have witnessed a descent into the chaos that preceded the arrival of the Taliban, a
country administered not by a new era of democracy under the tutelage of the hyperpower, but merely by the
return of the warlords. Beyond Kabul, much of the country remains too insecure for any meaningful efforts at
reconstruction and there is enormous difficulty in bringing relief aid to the rural population.

1. Why does the doctrine of power set by neo-imperial America deny space to counselling?
2. What is the essence of ‘moral equivalence’ whereas War has no moral justification?
3. Why do countries occupied and under the tutelage of hypepower have no peace?
4. Arguably Europe and hyperpower US are at cross purposes over the concept of war. Are they? Why?
5. What Tony Blair’s meant by ‘wise counsel’, and did it prevail?

(i) They were lieing in the sun.
(ii) He will not come without he is asked.
(iii) John as well as Harry bear witness to it.
(iv) The crew was now on board and they soon busied themselves in preparing to meet the coming storm.
(v) Could I have piece of please?
(vi) Is there a sport club near by?
(vii) The coat is quite big.
(viii) It’s only a short travel by train.

That familiarity produces neglect has been long observed the effect of all external objects however great or
splendid ceases with their novelty the courtier stands without emotion in the royal presence the music
tramples under his foot the beauties of the spring with little attention to their fragrance and the inhabitant of
the coast darts his eye upon the immense diffusion of waters without awe wonder or terror.

       (b)Re-write the following sentences (ONLY FIVE) after  filling in the blanks with appropriate Prepositions.

(i) The knavish wolf was able_____ convince the pig to let him _____ his home.
(ii) I looked this word ____ in the dictionary, but I still don’t understand it.
(iii) I need to learn these verbs ___ heart ___ tomorrow.
(iv) The morgue is redolent___ the odor of deceased individuals.
(v) He is cogitating___ some means of revenge.
(vi) He was reticent___ do anything about the problem.
(vii) His body is impervious___ moisture.
(viii) Ahmad applied ___ the bank for a loan.

(i) Gibe,
Jibe (ii) Epigram, Epigraph
(iii) Brawl, Bawl
(iv) Crib, Crypt
(v) Barmy, Balmy
(vi) Peat, Petite
(vii) Monogamous, Monogenous
(viii) Postilion, Posterior

استعماریت پسند انگر یزی اقدار کےسا منے خوش آمدانہ اور فر ما نبردا عمل کے بر خال ف ، جسے بر ُس دور میں اختیار کر رکھا تھا ۔ سید احمد خاں اور طا نوی حکمرانوں نے فر و غ دیا تھااور جسے اہل ہند نے ا ٰ ن کے اعلی مر تبت اور روشن دما غ فر زند سید محمو د د ا و نو ں نے ایسا رویہ اختیار کر نے کی کو شش کی ُ گو یا وہ انگر یزو ں کے مساوی اور ہم مر تبہ ہوں ۔ سن ١٨٦٧ ء کے آگر ہ دربا ر کا واقعہ نہ صر ف مسلما نو ں کو بلکہ پور ی ہندوستا نی قو م کو بخو بی معلو م تھا ۔ سید احمد خاں نے اس در با ر سے اس لیے علیحد گی اختیا ر کی تھی کہ وہا ں ہندوستانیو ں کو انگر یزو ں کے مقا بلے میں کم تر در جے کی نشست فرا ہم کی گئی تھی ۔ اس دربا ر میں سید احمد خاں کو ایک تمغہ عطا کیا جا نے واال تھا ۔ بعد میں میرٹھ کے کمشنر ویلیمس کو یہ خد مت تقویض کی گئی کہ وہ علی گڑھ ریلو ے اسٹیشن جا کر سید احمد خا ں کو تمغہ پیش کر یں