My neighbours quarrel over a strip of land that runs between their ancestral plots; it’s just wide enough and long enough to dig a good deep ditch to drain the poisons that have festered for ages between them, but not nearly enough to bury them, end on end. It makes me wonder; if we claim to own the land we live on down to the centre of the earth, which after all is just a pinpoint dot— who owns that dot? And who owns the rain we drink, and who the air we breathe? Can you or I or that millionaire buy a ray of light, the evening’s cool, the moonlight’s mystery? Who has the right to sicken a child to hurl a stone at my neighbour’s cat? Questions 3 and 4 are based on passage 2. 3. This question has two subparts, A+B. Both have to be answered: A. What is the message of the poem? What examples does the poet cite to convey his main idea? Explain in 250-300 words. (10 marks) B. Imagine you are a mediator between the two quarrelling parties trying to settle their dispute. In about 350-500 words, write 10 turns of dialogue where you as the mediator make an attempt to amicably settle the quarrel by giving both parties a chance to voice their grievances and arrive at a solution. (15 marks) 4. This question has two subparts, A+B. Both have to be answered: A. In the poem, the poet begins with a quarrel between two neighbours over a “strip of land between their ancestral plots”. Why does the poet think that such disputes are meaningless? Explain in 250-300 words. (10 marks) B. Imagine that you are a news reporter covering the quarrel between the two neighbours. Write a news report in about 350-500 words. (15 marks)
Answers
xplanation:
In the poem the writer mentions about an ever lasting quarrel between two neighbours over the issue of land. The writer takes this as a meaningless fight since he believed that people should not worry about such things, since they don't actually own everything they are using, such as the air they breath with or the water they drink. According to the writer, such matters such be resolved amicably rather taking them from one generation to the other
The main idea of the text is that boundaries are man made. So, fighting over land ownership is the result of man’s own rules. Nature did not set any boundaries. In fact if one really wants to get down to the core of ownership issues, it will all boil down to a dot in the middle of the earth. No one can claim ownership of that dot. In fact it belongs to everyone. Similarly, no single person, irrespective of how rich or poor, can buy elements of nature, like ‘a ray of light’, the ‘evening’s cool’ or even the moonlight. In the same way, the air and rain do not belong to a single individual. If nature does not intend to set boundaries and divide its resources, it is not right for humans to do so and is even more unacceptable for man to fight over things like land.