Oh Father, Dear Father – Raj Kinger

UNIT – V

Oh Father, Dear Father – Raj Kinger

Q1. Why is the letter written?

Introduction: “Oh Father, Dear Father” by Raj Kinger is a heart-wrenching letter addressed to a father by his son. The letter writer Rahul is the class topper in his school who slips to the Second rank for losing a quarter marks. This letter is his anguished plea to his father who scolds him for losing his first rank. Rahul is against the Indian educational system which is characterized by rote learning without any practical exposure to the real world. He condemns the emphasis placed on examinations, marks and ranks.

Q2. What is the father’s advice to the writer of the letter?

Q3. Write brief note on the relationship between the letter writer and his father?

Q4. What is the letter writer’s perception of literacy?

Q5. How does the letter writer critique the education system in India? Does he make a convincing argument? Why/ Why not?

Rahul and his father are poles apart. Rahul’s father is a typical rigid-minded Indian parent who believes in high score. He leads a complicated and boring life. He earns well, believes in the importance of money and has a set of rules written for his son. He has a specific approach to life and cannot expect his son to go against his approach. He has an uncompromising attitude and has always taught his son to be moulded in the mould of his beliefs. He often asks his son to think twice before studying and before answering the papers. He scolds his son for losing his first rank.

Rahul, on the other hand, is intelligent but loves a simple and natural life. He is inspired by the life style of his grandparents. Rahul learns from his grandparents that peace of mind and happiness is the most important things in life. For Rahul, practical education matters more than theoretical examinations. In his opinion, high scores are of no use if one is unable to put his theoretical knowledge into practice. Real education is that which comes handy in our day-today life. For instance it should teach us how to protect our plants from pests, how to fix a fuse or how to make your own desk using your carpenter tools.

Rahul’s argument against the education system in India is quite convincing. He is against the Indian educational system which is characterized by rote learning without any practical exposure to the real world. He condemns the emphasis placed on examinations, marks and ranks.

Q6. How did the letter writer’s teacher react to his asking her a question?

Rahul has an unpleasant experience with his Biology teacher. When his Rose plant is attacked by pests, Rahul seeks advice of his teacher to save his plant. But the teacher gets irritated as she thinks it a question out of their syllabus and asks him to approach a gardener for advice. The teacher serves as a warning to all those teachers who do not show any interest or reverence towards their profession and mould the students into mere mechanical objects.

Q7. What kind of childhood does the letter writer wish he had?

Q8. What approach did the letter writer’s grandfather have towards studies?

Q9. Describe the letter writer’s grandparents and their outlooks towards studies and life.

Rahul loved the peaceful and happy childhood of his grandparents. Rahul’s grandfather used to speak of a carefree and beautiful childhood, of the days when he spent plucking mangoes and guavas from their jameen, of picnics on the banks of the river where men cooked mouth-watering food and of playing marbles and gilli danda. During his grandfather’s childhood, studies were only secondary for our survival. The major subject in their education was living and experiencing.

Rahul had always found his grandfather in the right place. He was a man who believed in simplicity in sharp contrast to Rahul’s father. Rahul asks his father whether his grandfather was a liar in order to remind him that his grandfather’s life was the one worth living and not any failure. Seventy years He refers to the 70 years age of his grandfather and questions his father if the world has turned upside down during this period. It was during these 70 years that his grandfather had acquired a load of experience which Rahul considers ideal. 

Q10. Why is the letter writer’s grandmother wise?

            Rahul’s grandmother was semi-literate while his mother was highly qualified. Yet his grandmother lived a happy and contended life and was very wise. She took delight in cooking, gardening and reading the Gita. Rahul’s mother, on the other hand, was always tensed and nervous. Rahul questions his father whether literacy has become a harbinger of restlessness, fear and frustration. 

Q11. How did the letter writer lose his first rank?

Q12. What does the letter writer fear?

Rahul expresses a fear that his rigid schooling will deprive him of the joy of learning. He tells his father that the over emphasis on his studies has taken away all his enjoyment from his childhood. He says that education does not seem to make people happy. 

Rahul condemns our educational system and explains the reason for losing his first rank. It was due to his disagreement with his teacher regarding an answer in English Grammar. Although the teacher was wrong, he was adamant that he was correct. Rahul criticizes such an education system which curbs independent thinking and encourages blind adherence to whatever the teacher teaches.

A Brief Summary :

Oh Father, Dear Father” by Raj Kinger is a heart-wrenching letter addressed to a father by his son. The letter writer Rahul is the class topper in his school who slips to the Second rank for losing a quarter marks. This letter is his anguished plea to his father who scolds him for losing his first rank.

Rahul’s father is a typical rigid-minded Indian parent who believes in high score. He leads a complicated and boring life. He earns well, believes in the importance of money and has a set of rules written for his son. Although he often asks his son to think twice before studying and before answering the papers, he scolds his son for losing his first rank.

Rahul, on the other hand, is intelligent but loves a simple and natural life. He is inspired by the life style of his grandparents.

Rahul has an unpleasant experience with hisBiology teacher. When his Rose plant is attacked by pests, Rahul seeks advice of his teacher to save his plant. But the teacher gets irritated as she thinks it a question out of their syllabus and asks him to approach a gardener for advice.

Rahul loved the peaceful and happy childhood of his grandparents. Rahul’s grandfather used to speak of a carefree and beautiful childhood, of the days when he spent plucking mangoes and guavas from their jameen, of picnics on the banks of the river where men cooked mouth-watering food and of playing marbles and gilli danda. During his grandfather’s childhood, studies were only secondary for our survival. The major subject in their education was living and experiencing.

Rahul asks his father whether his grandfather was a liar in order to remind him that his grandfather’s life was the one worth living and not any failure. He refers to the 70 years age of his grandfather and questions his father if the world has turned upside down during this period. It was during these 70 years that his grandfather had acquired a load of experience which Rahul considers ideal.

            Rahul’s grandmother was semi-literate while his mother was highly qualified. Yet his grandmother lived a happy and contended life and was very wise. She took delight in cooking, gardening and reading the Gita. Rahul’s mother, on the other hand, was always tensed and nervous. Rahul questions his father whether literacy has become a harbinger of restlessness, fear and frustration.

Rahul tells his father that the over emphasis on his studies has taken away all his enjoyment from his childhood. He says that today's education does not seem to make people happy.

Rahul condemns our educational system and explains the reason for losing his first rank. It was due to his disagreement with his teacher regarding an answer in English Grammar. Although the teacher was wrong, he was adamant that he was correct. Rahul criticizes such an education system which curbs independent thinking and encourages blind adherence to whatever the teacher teaches.

GOOD MANNERS – BY J.C.HILL

UNIT – IV

GOOD MANNERS – BY J.C.HILL

About the author: John C Hill (1888 – 1943) is a famous British writer. He was educated at Harrow and Trinity College, and was eventually ordained as a priest.

Introduction:  J. C. Hill’s “Good Manners” is an adaptation from his famous book “An Introduction to Citizenship”. In his essay “Good Manners”, the famous British writer John C. Hill stresses on the importance of thoughtfulness and courtesy towards common people. Human life on this planet is not permanent. Hence one must try, as far as possible, to behave politely and to help others.

Good manners are based on having sympathy for others and acknowledging one’s own limitations. We should strive to maintain cordial relations amongst one another.

Q1.How did the attack of influenza change the young man’s attitude towards old men?

Q2. What made the young man lose his strength?

Ans:    Hill’s begins the essay with a story of a young man. Once there lived a young man who was very strong and healthy and carried on his work very actively. He was proud of his strength and had no sympathy for the “uninteresting folk” i.e. the old and the helpless people. One day he got an attack of influenza and became seriously ill. When he recovered, he became very weak. He could hardly walk. After a few days, he started working again. But he felt very tired while returning home from work. He felt sad looking at the strong young men sitting comfortably in the train or bus. It was then that he understood the misery of the weak and old people who were standing beside him throughout the journey. He realized that he will get back his strength after some days but those old people will never get back theirs. After recovering, he promptly gave up his seat for the weak and the aged in the bus or train. One should not feel proud of oneself and look down upon the weak.

Q3. Why should one not call an old man “an old fool”?

Ans:    Hill gives a beautiful illustration saying that supposing an old man is hesitating to cross the road when young cyclist is racing fast. The cyclist should not get irritated and call him an old fool. He should not scold him for walking slowly. The man may be weak and tired or he may not be able to see or listen well. In the past, he might have been a famous soldier in war or perhaps lost one leg. Someday the young cyclist may face a similar situation. How would he feel if some school boys made fun of him in his old age?

Q4. What odds did the parents and teachers face in their lives?

Ans.    Hill wants all the young boys and girls to learn that they are all fragile little things in this dangerous world. We are staying on this planet only for a very short time. We will never see those who we live with again in our lives. During our short stay here, we should help the world as much as we can. So we should behave politely and try to please and help as many people as possible.

A child would not know about the sufferings of his parents, teachers or older people because they never disclose them. They might have experienced severe blows in life and may be very tired. But they never complain about them. Instead parents try to invest everything they have for the well being of their children. So children should make life easy for them. Good manners come from sympathy with others and from understanding our own limitations.

Q5. What good manners should we follow when we are with friends?

Q6. It takes two to speak the truth-one to speak and another to hear. Explain.

Q7. What did Thoreau say about uttering the truth?

Q8. How should one speak to others? Why?

Q9. Why does one have to express truth differently to different people?

Q10. What precautions should one take while speaking in company?

While in company, we should be very careful in observing good manners. We should speak clearly and sufficiently loud for others to hear us. It is our duty to make ourselves understood.  We should not talk too much and should always give others a chance to speak. Good listeners get enough time to think so that when they speak, they can speak clearly.

When in a company, one must watch out for certain signs in order to be labeled as a well- mannered person. Some people are delighted to speak continuously wherever they are. They think that everyone is delighted by their company, but in fact everyone there would be exhausted and angry at their behaviour. Hence one should not do all the talking for himself; he should instead give equal opportunity to others to express their views and feelings. We should always give the other person a full and patient hearing. If they do not speak, it means that they do not want us to talk too. 

Strange as it may seem, many times, what we speak will not be the truth. . If we speak of some subject, we should be aware of the fact that the listener might have a different idea about what we are talking.

 The well known American writer Thoreau once said that “It takes two to speak the truth – one to speak and another to hear”. Truth differs from person to person. Socialism might be the State control of commerce and industry to some, but to some others, it might be robbing the rich and serving the poor. What we think to be true needn't always be true. We should not assume that we alone know the whole truth as there is always a possibility that we are mistaken. 

Q11. Why did the Boy Scout make a joke of the Lady’s question?

Q12. Why do some people take remarks too literally?

Ans:    Hill remarks that we should train ourselves to remain calm even if some persons ask us annoying or irritating questions. This is especially crucial in dealing with elderly people. We should also not take remarks too literally. Instead we should look for the real meaning in the statements.

Once an old lady asked a little boy whether he was a Boy Scout.  He was irritated as his uniform was enough to tell that he was a Boy Scout. He rudely answered that he was 'two eggs on toast'. Perhaps she only meant that he looked nice in his uniform and in fact there was really nothing silly in her remark. Such rude and impolite behaviour towards older people is incorrect. 

Similarly, when a friend asks you, “You will not be going past the post office, will you?”, he actually expects you to go a little out of your way to oblige him. Try to help him if possible.

Q13.    What signs should one watch out for in a company?

Ans:    When in a company, one must watch out for certain signs in order to be labeled as a well- mannered person. Some people are delighted to speak continuously wherever they are. They think that everyone is delighted by their company, but in fact everyone there would be exhausted and angry at their behaviour.

Hence one should not do all the talking for himself; he should instead give equal opportunity to others to express their views and feelings. We should always give the other person a full and patient hearing. If they do not speak, it means that they do not want us to talk too. 

We should not say unpleasant things about someone behind his back. Such remarks will usually find its way to that person. Always adjust your remarks as there’s always a possibility that the very person would be overhearing you. Hence never gossip about other people. 

Q14. How could we save a lot of argument and anger?

Q15. Explain the writer’s remark: “No man really understands himself”.

Ans:  J C Hill advises us to understand ourselves before teasing or talking ill about others. Many times we fail to understand our selves. There is always a possibility of us being mistaken.  People look at everything from their own perspective. J.C. Hill sites an example. 

Some students were once shown a picture of a bull-fight and asked later to describe it from memory. One said, a bull's tongue was out. Actually the bull's mouth was closed, but because its head was turned to the side, its ear had looked like a tongue. So whenever we argue with somebody about a point, think that always there is always a chance of us going wrong.  Hence we should take care of what we argue and speak. If we understand this truth, a lot of argument and anger could be avoided.

Q16. Where do good manners ultimately come from?

Ans:  Good manners come from having sympathy with others and from understanding our own limitations. We should realize that our version of truth is always a part of the Larger Truth. We should realize that we are unimportant little people on this earth who are going to pass this earth only once. Hence we should give up pride and learn to be humble. We should try to help the world as much as we can in the short time that we are going to spend here.

Q17. Bring out the significance of good manners in life according to this writer.

Ans: Introduction:  J. C. Hill’s “Good Manners” is an adaptation from his famous book “An Introduction to Citizenship”. In his essay “Good Manners”, the famous British writer John C. Hill stresses on the importance of thoughtfulness and courtesy towards common people. Human life on this planet is not permanent. Hence one must try, as far as possible, to behave politely and to help others.

Good manners are based on having sympathy for others and acknowledging one’s own limitations. We should strive to maintain cordial relations amongst one another.

Hill’s begins the essay with a story of a young man and points out that one should not feel proud of oneself and look down upon the weak.

18.What is importance of good manner in life?

Ans- In everyone’s life good manner plays an important role always. Good manner consists lots of qualities, we should never ignore it. Good manner is the real means sweetness of life. 

According to J.C .Hill who has written this piece of prose entitled with “Good manner”. The Author advises us about a lot of manner which is most important in our life. He suggested us to help every old people ... he talks about the perfect conversation and we should never feel bad or make any evil for anybody... so we can say that if someone consist these types of manner he should be a perfect civilised person. So Good Manner plays a very important role in our life.

19. What factors produce Good manners?

Ans- J.C.Hill who wrote the prose piece entitled ‘good manner’ pointed out all the possible factors which can produce good manner. According to him compassion, understanding of one’s limitation and accommodation of other’s view point produce good manners. J.C.Hill refers to his illness and recovery but his weakness has been persisting for a long time. He feels that old people must be suffering from weakness. Sympathy for old people in the heart. He therefore suggests us to be sympathetic to the old people. He suggests us about the perfect conversation. The good qualities of a person produce good manners.

20. What should be the rule about Conversation?

Ans- when we talk about the rule about conversation , then we should talk
on the basis of general rule and that is .we should not keep on talking and don’t allow the other persons to speak. If we are only two, one of us should share it equally. After speaking for a while we should keep quiet and allow the other to speak. If he does not respond it means he does not like the conversation and don’t want to be part of that. And at that time we should stop the conversation.

21. What does J.C.Hill say about the truth?

Ans- In J.C.Hill ‘s prose ‘Good Manner’ he says that what we very confidently call the truth is just out truth and part of a larger truth. What we say is never absolute truth for it has different meaning for different persons under different situations. In his words, Truth is never a one sided game. It takes to two to speak the truth one cannot speak the truth by saying what one thinks is truth. J.C Hill very nicely explained about Truth here in his prose Good Manners.

TECHNOLOGY WITH A HUMAN FACE - E F Schumacher

UNIT - III

TECHNOLOGY WITH A HUMAN FACE

About the Author:

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher was an internationally influential economic thinker, statistician and economist in Britain, serving as Chief Economic Advisor for many years for Britain’s National Coal Board. He was an economist of international repute and the author of the books titled “Small is Beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered” and “A Guide for the Perplexed”. The phrase “Small is Beautiful” is used to champion the small, appropriate technologies that are believed to empower people more, in contrast with phrases such as "bigger is better".

Q1. What prompts the writer to advocate for technology with a human face?

Ans. The essay “Technology with a Human Face” is taken from E.F. Schumacher’s book “Small is Beautiful”.

In this essay Schumacher expresses his fear and concern about the inhuman nature of modern technology which is taking the world from crisis to crisis showing visible signs of disaster and breakdown of mankind in the coming future.

Everything shaped by technology, both in the past as well as in the present, looks sick and inhuman. Hence it is high time we considered if we could have – ‘a technology with a human face’.

Q2. How, according to the writer, is technology anti-nature?

Ans. Schumacher differentiates between the principles of Nature and Technology. Nature always follows a self-limit principle i.e. it knows where and when to stop. There is a measure in all natural things in their size, speed or violence. Hence it tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-cleansing. Technology or super-technology, on the other hand, has no self-limit principle. Hence it acts like a foreign body in Nature and is thus subjected to rejection.

Q3. What are the three crises technology has given rise to simultaneously?

Ans. The modern technology, which has shaped the modern world, has involved itself in three crises simultaneously. Firstly, humans finds the inhuman technological, organizational and political patterns to be very suffocating and debilitating and revolt against them. Secondly, due to technology, the living environment is giving signs of partial breakdown and lastly the world’s non-renewable resources especially the fossil fuels are on the verge of virtual exhaustion. Schumacher says that any one of these three crises can turn out to be deadly and eventually cause a total collapse. It is a result of materialism and limitless expansionism of technology in a finite environment.

Q4. How does the writer substantiate his view that technology causes more problems than it offers solutions?

Q5. Why does the writer say that doing work with brains and hands has become exceedingly rare, especially in rich countries?

Q6. Does the writer argue convincingly that modern technology has evolved to be more and more inhuman and has led to more problems in both rich and poor nations?

Q7. Why does the writer state that modern technology does not enrich man but empties him?

Schumacher says that growth of industrialisation during the last twenty five years has developed more problems than solutions even in the rich countries. Industrialisation has brought about only an illusionary success. Technology appears to have helped us in many ways but the two big problems of unemployment and poverty could not be solved in both developed as well as developing countries.

The primary task of technology such as various machinery and computers is to reduce the burden of man’s work so that he can enjoy life and relax. But modern technology is eliminating skilful, productive and creative work of human hands and brains and therefore  destroys work enjoyment. Modern technology is gigantic, highly complicated and needed huge capital investment. Only the rich can afford to run modern factories. These labour saving machines makes the rich richer and poor poorer and unemployment and poverty increases all over the world.

He says that a new type of technology called self-help technology is needed so that everyone including old men and children can work with their clever brain and two skilful hands with great satisfaction.

Schumacher never says that technology in itself is bad. However, he urges us to utilize the scientific techniques that help us get to the truth of the matter and increase our knowledge, to focus on technology that does not lead to giantism, speed, or violence and destruction of human-work enjoyment. What he instead asks us is to recapture simplicity in all that we do to produce a self-balancing system of nature.

Q8. How does the people’s technology that the writer proposes differ from primitive or super-technology?

Q9. How does the writer establish the claim that technology only lightens the burden of work and does not really carry any weight or prestige?

Q10. What are the strategies the writer employs in this argumentative essay to convince the readers that technology is more a bane rather than a boon, although there are certain explicit advantages of it?

Q11. Explain his concept of ‘technology with a human face’ and find out how it would tide over the crises of the super-technology of the rich.

According to Schumacher, the modern world, shaped by technology, continues to look sick. We wonder that technology has helped us in many ways, yet the underlying factors of alleviation of poverty and unemployment have not been solved by technology at all. In that case, we have to consider whether it is possible to have– a better technology with a human face.

 It very strange to say that the laws and principles of technology, which are the product of man, are generally very different from those of human nature and of living nature. There is a  measure in all natural things in their size, speed of violence. The system of nature, which man is a part of it, tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-clearing. However, it is not so with technology. It recognizes no self-limit principle in terms of its size, speed, or violence. It does not possess the virtues of being self-balanced, self-adjusting, self-cleansing.

But somehow, man is dominated by technology and specialization. The modern technology acts like a foreign body and it has become inhuman in the subtle system of nature.

In Schumacher’s opinion, the modern technology was involved in three crises simultaneously. Firstly, the human nature revolts against the suffocating and debilitating inhuman technological patterns. Secondly, the living environment has partially become a breakdown.  Thirdly, it is clear that the inroads of the world’s non-renewable resources have become serious bottlenecks and virtual exhaustion looms ahead in the future. It is all a result of materialism and limitless expansionism in a finite environment. It is a big question whether we could develop technology, which can solve all our problems, a technology with a human face.

Schumacher says, “The primary task of technology, it would seem, is to lighten the burden of the work man has to carry in order to stay alive and develop his potential”. Technology that lightens our burden would help give us better time to relax and do what we would like, increase our creativity, work things with our hands that give us joy as defined by Thomas Aquinas. 

Schumacher explains that only 3.5 percent of the 'total social time' is spent by us on the actual production while the rest 96.5 percent of ‘total social time’ is spent on other general day to day activities which do not involve any productive work. Hence, virtually maximum 'social time' has been turned into an inhuman chore which does not enrich a man but instead empties him. Taking stock of our goals, everybody would take it a privilege to work usefully, creatively with his own hands and brains can actually produce things and would benefit the society.

The modern industrial society is not romantic and certainly not utopian. It is in deep trouble and holds no promise of survival. We must have the courage to dream if we want to survive and give our children a chance to survive. We must develop a new lifestyle, which is compatible with the real needs of human nature and living nature around us. In order to avoid the dire consequences, both by rich and poor countries, we need a different kind of technology, a technology more productive with a human face.

Q12. What compels the writer to formulate his first law of economics: ‘The amount of real leisure a society enjoys tends to be in inverse proportion to the amount of labour saving machinery it employs’?

Ans: We have so far, possessed a vast accumulation of new knowledge which include splendid scientific techniques to increase this knowledge further and immense practical experience in its application. This is called truthful knowledge. But so far, we have made an unwise and destructive use of our technology because we never get enjoyment in our work. Therefore Schumacher suggests an idea that the productive time of 3.5% of total social time to be increased to 20% of total social time. If this wonderful idea is put into practice, even children and old people would be able to do creative, productive and useful work and they can enjoy doing it with their clever brain and two skilful hands. The therapeutic and educational value of such enjoyable and useful work will be blessing for all people in the world. Then no one wants to raise the school leaving age or to lower the retirement age. Everybody would welcome the opportunity of working usefully, creatively with his own hands and brains in his own time at his own pace and with excellent tools. People who work in this way do not know the difference between work and leisure because the work itself is full of pleasure and enjoyment!

 Schumacher is a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and tries to follow his teaching in the scientific ideas about the new life-style he has visualised in this essay.

 Gandhiji said that the poor of the world cannot be helped by mass production, only by production by the mass. According to Schumacher, a new technology with a human face should be introduced. The present inhuman technology is based on mass production with highly capital investment and high energy input where workers are mere slaves of work and the rich owner makes huge profit. This system should be changed and a new technology with a human face should be introduced. Instead of mass production, the new system is based on production by the masses. All people, young and old can work with their skilful hands and clever brains with first class tools in their own time and speed and then work would be great pleasure for them.

 Concluding his essay, Schumacher says that the technology of production by the masses is called “the intermediate technology” because this technology is far superior to the primitive technology of old days, but at the same time much simpler, cheaper and freer than the super technology of the rich. The intermediate technology can also be called ‘self- help technology or democratic or people’s technology. This technology is making use of the best of modern knowledge and experience, suitable for the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of natural resources and designed to serve human being instead of making him the servant of machine.

Q13. Why does the writer say that modern technology has become inhuman?

A: - E.F. Schumacher was born in 1911 in Germany, a British economist and an author too. His "Technology with a Human Face" is an extract collected from his famous book"Small Is Beautiful."

          The author is apt in his words, when he opines 'modern technology has become inhuman.' It is obviously fact that technology has helped us in many ways for the development. While technology has also brought us a lot of problems. It is unable to win the acceptance of all the sectors of the society.

          If technology has become a boon for elite, sophisticated, educated sectors of the society, it has also become a bane for mass, uneducated, unadvanced sectors of it. With the help of a tractor, a landlord can cultivate large area of land, but has it helped to feed the millions of agriculture labors? Not at all. Same is the case of industrial and other sectors also. In this way technology, which has enabled to create some employment, has equally generated huge unemployment in the society. This 'inhuman technology' has also unable alleviate poverty and unemployment from the society. Ironically, technology itself has become responsible for these two major problems. These two problems are not only apparent in the poor countries, but also in the so-called rich and developed countries. In this 21st century's advanced technological helm, people have almost become servants of machines.

Hence it is apt to say that technology has become inhuman.

14. How would the alternative technology suggested by the Schumacher make things better?

A: - E.F. Schumacher was born in 1911 in Germany, a British economist and an author too. His "Technology with a Human Face" is an extract collected from his famous book"Small Is Beautiful."

          Schumacher identified three-fold crisis that affect the world, which are the results of modern technology. Hence in the place of modern technology, he seeks a new life style based on what he calls 'technology with a human face'. Instead of making human hands and brains redundant, this alternative technology would help people to become far more productive than they ever have been before. The technology offered by the author enables people's brains and skillful hands to support the production with first class tools. It also nourishes the normal human pleasure and satisfaction they get out of the time they spent on work by using their physical skills. It is compatible with the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of non-renewable resources. More importantly, the technology offered by the author designed to serve human being instead of making him as the servant of machines.

15. How would society benefit if the percentage of the time people spend to actually produce things is increased?

A: - E.F. Schumacher was born in 1911 in Germany, a British economist and an author too. His "Technology with a Human Face" is an extract collected from his famous book"Small Is Beautiful."

          The author remarks that in the modern world the productive time has already been reduced to about 3.5% of total social time. In his view, the social time means twenty four hours of a day each and productive time means the time actually people engaged in real production.

          Schumacher asks people to have a goal to increase this total productive time as much as they can. If we can do so, he says that there will lie a better future for us. When we put our efforts to increase the productive time, we can employ skillful, creative and productive work of human hands and brains. Even children and old people would then be allowed to make themselves useful. We can also have a lot of time for accomplishing any piece of work. If we can increase the productive time, its therapeutic as well as educational value will also be in their abundance. No one would then want to raise the school leaving age and no one would lower their retirement age.

           With this method of increasing productive time, people do not find it difficult to work for many hours but rather they do not even realize the difference between work and leisure. Except during the time of sleeping or eating, they are always engaged in some productive work. The author says that if we can apply this method of increasing productive time, many of the 'on-cost jobs' will simply disappear. There will be little need for mindless entertainment or other comforts of technology.

16. What kind of lifestyle does the writer think we should adopt in order to survive and why does he think this going to be difficult?

A: - E.F. Schumacher was born in 1911 in Germany, a British economist and an author too. His "Technology with a Human Face" is an extract collected from his famous book"Small Is Beautiful."

          Schumacher wants us to adopt the lifestyle in which we can use our hands and brains usefully, productively and creatively. In his view, we should adopt a lifestyle in which we can increase the 'productive time' for the betterment of all the sectors of the society. In fact, he never says that technology is bad. But he urges us to utilize the scientific techniques to increase our knowledge. He urges to focus on technology that doesn't lead to the destruction of human enjoyment. We should adopt a lifestyle by depending on the technology, which Schumacher labeled as 'technology with a human face'. In his view, this new technology will certainly lighten the burden of our work, make us to stay alive and enable us to develop our potential.

          While, Schumacher thinks that now-a-days the establishment of this new intermediate technology is very difficult. He thinks so as the present 'consumer society' has totally addicted to technological materials and in their absence, finds it extremely difficult to lead life. In fact, this extreme dependence on material things is not the problem of the poor but of the rich societies.

17. What is the main difference between the system of mass production and production by the masses as indicated in the passage?

A: - E.F. Schumacher was born in 1911 in Germany, a British economist and an author too. His "Technology with a Human Face" is an extract collected from his famous book "Small Is Beautiful."

          Here Schumacher asks us to think about what he terms, intermediate technology- "production by the masses, rather than mass production." In order to highlight the production by the masses, Schumacher mentions the words of Gandhi, when he said "the poor of the world cannot be helped by mass production (total production by a nation) but only by production by the masses."

          The obvious difference between both of these is; the system of mass productionis based on sophisticated machinery, high capital investment and human labor-saving technology. While the system of 'production by the masses' uses priceless resources that are possessed by human beings. Their clever brains and skillful hands support the production with first class tools. The technology of mass production is naturally violent, ecologically damaging and suffers from the scarcity of nonrenewable resources. On the other hand, the production by the masses is compatible with the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of non-renewable resources. More importantly it is designed to serve the people instead of making him the servant of machines.

         Thus, after making this comparison, we can say that the production by the masses is obviously very handy to all the sectors of the society.