Top Maoist leader who has been killed in an encounter with security forces at Burishol village in Junglemahal area of West Bengal? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Top Maoist leader who has been killed in an encounter with security forces at Burishol village in Junglemahal area of West Bengal?

Answer: Mallojula Koteswara Rao.

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Top Maoist leader who has been killed in an encounter with security forces at Burishol village in Junglemahal area of West Bengal?....

QA->One of the country"s top drug kingpins who was killed by the Mexican Navy special forces in a shootout in the central city of Cuernavaca recently ?....

QA->Who said ‘Climbing to the top demands strength; whether it is to the top of Mount Everest or to the top of your career’?....

QA->The book ‘Diplomatic Encounter’ has been written by which author?....

QA->Top leader of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) who has been handed over to India on November 11, 2015 by Bangladesh, 18 years after his arrest in Dhaka?....

MCQ-> When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post- experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post- experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization’s or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals’ reactions may vary as a function of a: their prior level of commitment and b: the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals a: commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and b: perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than a: less- committed group members or b: highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.
...

MCQ-> Each of the questions below consists of a question and two statements numbered I and II given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statement are sufficient to answer the question. Read both the statements andWhich village is to the North-East of village ‘A’ ? I. Village ‘B’ is to the North of village A, villages C and D are to the East and West of village B, respectively. II. Village ‘P’ is to the South of village ‘A’ and village ‘E’ is to the East of village ‘P’, village ‘K’ is to the North of village ‘P’...

MCQ->Which village is to the North-East of village ‘A’.? I. Village B is to the North of village A, villages C and D are to the East and West of the of the village B respectively. II. Village P is to the South of Village A and village E is to the East of the village P. village K is to the North of village P....

MCQ->Towards which direction is Village J from Village W? I. Village R is to the west of Village W and to the north of Village T. II. Village Z is to the east of Village J and to the south of Village T. III. Village M is to the north-east of Village J and to the north of Village Z....

MCQ-> Each of the questions below consists of a question and two statements numbered I and II given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Read both the statements and Give answersTowards which direction is Village M from village T? I. Village P is to the South of Village M and Village P is to the West of Village T. II. Village K is to the East of Village M and Village K is to the North of Village T....