This requires finding the author's explanation for this oversight. The key lies in understanding what happened after the war -> when new nations formed, they needed new stories to tell about themselves. From passage: "With partition and the onset of the India-Pakistan rivalry, both of the new nations needed fresh stories for self-legitimisation rather than focusing on shared wartime experiences." Author's reasoning: After 1947 partition -> India and Pakistan became rivals -> both needed new national stories to prove their legitimacy -> focusing on shared colonial war experiences didn't help build separate identities -> so they ignored WWII contributions.

Now let's eliminate the wrong options by checking what the passage actually says: 🟢 Option 1 -> correct -> "fresh stories for self-legitimisation" = building new non-colonial identity, moving away from shared colonial wartime past 🔴 Option 2 -> irrelevant -> passage never says India wants to "forget" war costs - it explains political reasons for not focusing on war, not emotional ones about forgetting trauma 🔴 Option 3 -> contradicts passage -> passage actually emphasizes India's major role (2.5 million soldiers, "largest volunteer force," major military base) - opposite of "supporting role" 🔴 Option 4 -> not supported -> passage shows war helped independence (weakened Britain, convinced Attlee government) - doesn't suggest India blames war for partition The confusion might be between Options 1 and 2, but Option 2 talks about emotional reasons (wanting to forget trauma) while the passage gives political reasons (need for new national identity).

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts