Test: Reading Comprehension - 6 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q.

According to the passage, what does political murder in a democratic country signify?

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q.

Which of the following seems to be the main purpose of writing this passage?

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Which of the following is not true in the context of the passage?

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Which of the following is the meaning of the phrase "strike up" as used in the passage?

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Which of the following is true, according to the passage?

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most nearly SAME in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage: FOMENTED

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most nearly SAME in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage: CULPABLE

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most nearly SAME in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage: SCORE

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most nearly SAME in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage:  LANGUISH

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage: PILLORY

Amnesty International's charge that 'tens of thousands' of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, are "languishing" in Indian jails and that prisoners are routinely tortured in this country has to be seen in a much wider context than the organization's annual report cares to do. In its overall appraisal of 151 countries, Amnesty has accused 112 of torturing prisoners, 63 of harboring prisoners of conscience, 61 of resorting to political killings and 53 of detaining people without a trial. Of these apparently "overlapping" categories, India seems to have been excluded from the list of the 61 which undertake political killings. The report has, however, pointed out that "scores" of people in India die of torture in police and military custody and that many also simply disappear. Clearly, only a thin line separates the 61 charged with political murders from the rest. Before coming to such conclusions, however, it may also be necessary to classify the various countries according to their political systems. Torture by the security forces and killings at the behest of the government make no difference to the victims whether they are in a democratic country or a totalitarian one. It is also nobody's case that a democratic country is less "culpable" than dictatorship in the event of human rights violations. But the point that still needs to be made perhaps is that torture or 'disappearances' represent a failure of the system in a democracy in contrast to being an integral part of state policy in a country ruled by an autocrat who is answerable to no one.

India may be guilty of keeping 'tens of thousands' behind bars and of the other human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty, but it still remains a qualitatively different place from a totalitarian country. It is in this respect that Amnesty has been less than fair. It has chosen to ignore the distinctions between the good, the bad and the ugly. The openness of Indian society will be evident to anyone who spends half an hour in one of its chaotic marketplaces or visits the law courts or watches a political rally or reads a newspaper or "strikes up" a conversation with any person on the roads. There is no sense of fear in India, as in a dictatorship. There is also scope for securing relief from the heavy-handed behavior of the authorities, even if the human rights commission has not yet lived up to expectations. Unless such points are recognized, Amnesty's assessment will seem to be a dry recital of statistics which may "pillory" India simply because of its larger population. Mercifully, Amnesty nowadays at least notes that the terrorists also indulge in human rights violations and that India has to cope with several insurgencies "fomented" by a country where the military does not always seem to be under the control of the elected government. True, there is much that is wrong in India's prison system and with the way the terrorist challenge is sometimes met, but the stress should be on activating the self-correcting mechanism within a democracy and not merely on painting a grim, even biased, picture.

Q. Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage:  OVERLAPPING

After the “Liberal” a new catch-phrase is being coined: ‘A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored international conference on primary health and medical care, currently being held at Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conference at Milan too swear by the “new health order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and healthcare set-up in poor countries further entrenches itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it begins to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to muster the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement. The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-base, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained apathetic doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to cleanliness, hygienic sanitation, garbage disposal and other elementary but crucial matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have launched or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is resistance from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is to prepared either to offer condensed medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive healthcare and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q. The author is doubtful whether:

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold  and underlined to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

After the “Liberalisation”, “Globalisation” and the consequent changes in the new international economic order as well as new information technology order, a new catch-phrase is being coined: `A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored International Conference on Primary Health and Medical Care, currently being held in Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conferees at Milan, too, swear by the “New Health Order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and health care set-up in poor countries further "entrenches" itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it beings to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to "muster" the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement.

The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-biased, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained "allopathic" doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to garbage disposal and other elementary but "crucial" matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have "launched" or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is "resistance" from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is not prepared either to offer "condensed" medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive health care and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q. The author has reservations about the utility of the Milan Conference because:

After the “Liberalisation”, “Globalisation” and the consequent changes in the new international economic order as well as new information technology order, a new catch-phrase is being coined: `A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored International Conference on Primary Health and Medical Care, currently being held in Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conferees at Milan, too, swear by the “New Health Order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and health care set-up in poor countries further "entrenches" itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it beings to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to "muster" the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement.

The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-biased, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained "allopathic" doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to garbage disposal and other elementary but "crucial" matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have "launched" or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is "resistance" from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is not prepared either to offer "condensed" medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive health care and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q.

The contents of the passage indicate that the author is opposed to:

After the “Liberalisation”, “Globalisation” and the consequent changes in the new international economic order as well as new information technology order, a new catch-phrase is being coined: `A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored International Conference on Primary Health and Medical Care, currently being held in Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conferees at Milan, too, swear by the “New Health Order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and health care set-up in poor countries further "entrenches" itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it beings to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to "muster" the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement.

The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-biased, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained "allopathic" doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to garbage disposal and other elementary but "crucial" matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have "launched" or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is "resistance" from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is not prepared either to offer "condensed" medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive health care and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q.

It can be inferred from the contents of the passage that the author’s approach is:

After the “Liberalisation”, “Globalisation” and the consequent changes in the new international economic order as well as new information technology order, a new catch-phrase is being coined: `A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored International Conference on Primary Health and Medical Care, currently being held in Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conferees at Milan, too, swear by the “New Health Order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and health care set-up in poor countries further "entrenches" itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it beings to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to "muster" the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement.

The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-biased, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained "allopathic" doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to garbage disposal and other elementary but "crucial" matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have "launched" or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is "resistance" from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is not prepared either to offer "condensed" medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive health care and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q. To make the conference really useful, the author suggests:

After the “Liberalisation”, “Globalisation” and the consequent changes in the new international economic order as well as new information technology order, a new catch-phrase is being coined: `A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHO-sponsored International Conference on Primary Health and Medical Care, currently being held in Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing “new order”, little has actually been done. Will the conferees at Milan, too, swear by the “New Health Order”, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and health care set-up in poor countries further "entrenches" itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it beings to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million-dollar question is whether individual third-world governments are able and willing to "muster" the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement.

The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban-biased, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained "allopathic" doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers. The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to garbage disposal and other elementary but "crucial" matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel. Some third-world countries, including India, have "launched" or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is "resistance" from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is not prepared either to offer "condensed" medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive health care and curative medical attention. These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.

Q.

What does the author suggest for the cure of the cases involving complications?