Who are the winners of G.V Raja awards-2014, the highest government-level recognition for sports persons in Kerala? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who are the winners of G.V Raja awards-2014, the highest government-level recognition for sports persons in Kerala?

Answer: Anju Bobby George

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Who are the winners of G.V Raja awards-2014, the highest government-level recognition for sports persons in Kerala?....

QA->Noted painter who has been selected for Kerala government"s prestigious Raja Ravi Varma award in recognition of his outstanding contribution to art?....

QA->Olympians who have been picked for the 2012 G.V. Raja award — .the highest sporting honour of the State instituted by the Kerala State Sports Council?....

QA->Raja Raja Chola invaded Kerala in:....

QA->Noted Malayalam poet and litterateur, who has been selected for the prestigious Ezhuthachan Puraskaram -2014 in recognition of his valuable contribution to Malayalam language and literature?....

MCQ->Statements : Some prizes are winners. All winners are students. Conclusions : I. At least some winners are prizes. II. At least some students are winners....

MCQ-> My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice, I shall call justice as fairness. Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty determines the principles of justice.In ‘justice as fairness’, the original position is not an actual historical state of affairs. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.Justice as fairness begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions. Then, having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact laws, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. Moreover, assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles, it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles, those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principles. The general recognition of this fact would provide the basis for a public acceptance of the corresponding principles of justice. No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair.A just society, as conceptualized in the passage, can be best described as:
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you answer some of the questions.At the heart of what makes India a better regime than China is a healthy respect for the civil rights and liberties of its citizens. There are checks and balances in our government. But India’s new surveillance programme, the Central Monitoring system (CMS), resembles a dystopian society akin to George Orwell’s 1984.According to several news reports, the CMS gives the government, Indian security agencies and income tax (IT) officials the authority to listen to, and tape phone conversions, read emails and text messages, monitor Posts on Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin and track searches on Google of selected targets, without oversight by the courts or parliament. To call it sweeping is an understatement.Typically, Indian Security agencies need a court order for surveillance, or depend on Internet/telephone service providers for data, provided they supply a warrant. CMS allows the government to bypass the court. Milind Deora, India’s Minister of State for Information Technology says the new system will actually improve citizens’ privacy because telecommunication agencies would no longer be directly involved in the surveillance; only government officials would have these details – missing the point that in a democracy, there has to be freedom from government surveillance. This is hardly comforting in a nation riddled with governmental corruption.India does not have a privacy law. CMS will operate under the Indian Telegraph Act (ITA). The ITA is a relic of the British Raj from 1885, and gives the government the freedom to monitor private conversations. News reports quote anonymous telecommunications ministry officials as saying that CMS has been introduced for security purposes, and “this is to protect you and your country”.That is irrational. For one, there are no ‘security purposes’ that prevent the government from having a rational debate on this programme and getting approval from our elected representatives before authorizing such wide-reaching surveillance. If the government is worried that a public debate in a paralysed parliament would half the programme’s progress, then it can convene a committee of individuals or an individual body such as CAG to oversee the programme. It can seek judicial approval from the Supreme Court, and have a judge sign off on surveillance requests without making these requests public.As of now, the top bureaucrat in the interior ministry and his/her state level deputies will have the power to approve surveillance requests. Even the recently revealed US surveillance Programme, had ‘behind the doors’ bipartisan surveillance approval. Furthermore, US investigation agencies such as the CIA and NSA are not the ruling party’s marionettes; in India, that the CBI is an arm of the government is a fait accompli. Even the Supreme Court recently lambasted the CBI and asked it to guarantee its independence from government influences after it was proved that it shared unreleased investigation reports with the government.There is no guarantee that this top bureaucrat will be judicious or not use this as a tool to pursue political and personal vendettas against opposition parties or open critics of the government. Security purposes hardly justify monitoring an individual’s social media usage. No terrorist announces plans to bomb a building on Facebook. Neither do Maoists espouse Twitter as their preferred form of communication.Presumably, security purposes could be defined as the government’s need to intercept terrorist plans. How does giving the IT department the same sweeping surveillance powers justify security purposes? The IT office already has expansive powers to conduct investigations, summon individuals or company executives, and raid premises to catch tax evaders. In a world where most financial details are discussed and transferred online, allowing the IT departments to snoop on these without any reasonable cause is akin to airport authorities strip searching everyone who boards a flight.What happened on 26/11 or what happens regularly in Naxal – affected areas is extremely sad and should ideally, never take place again. But targeting terrorists means targeting people who show such inclinations, or those who arouse suspicions, either by their travels or heir associations with militant or extremist groups. And in a country where a teenager has been arrested for posting an innocent comment questioning the need for a bandh on the death of a political leader, gives us reason to believe that this law is most likely to be misused, if not abused. Select the word which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage. AKIN...

MCQ-> Read the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Thakur Raja, a young cabinet minister, glanced through the notes of his secretary regarding the recent controversies on ‘Racket’, the most popular game of the country. While International Racket Association (IRA) has agreed to implement Drug Testing Code (DTC), the Racket Club which controls the entire Racket related activities had some reservations regarding the initiative. A majority of the citizens eagerly awaited their country's participation and performance at the international competitions during the Champions Trophy. Due to the popularity of the game, 70% of the total revenue associated with the game originates from the country. Hence, the Racket Club has earned high bargaining power with the IRA and can influence decisions not aligned with its interests. Three of the most popular and senior players of the Club, including the captain, are against the imposition of DTC citing security reasons. A decision against the interests of these players might result in law and order problems throughout the country. Other players support the decision of their senior colleagues and if the Racket Club refuses, players may support the rebel Counter Racket Club, a new national level initiative. The Counter Racket Club can challenge the monopoly of the Racket Club, if it succeeds in attracting some popular players.Raja was a great soccer player and has major reservations against racket. According to him, racket has negative influence on the country’s youth and distracts them from productive work. He also considers drug testing as an essential feature of any sports and games across the world. As the new cabinet minister for Youth and Sports, he needs to take some important decisions on this contentious issue.If Thakur Raja wants to create a lasting impact, the most reasonable option for him is to:
...

MCQ-> Study 1 the following information careful’ ly and answer the questions given below : Nine persons – G, H, I, J, K, R, S, T and U — are seated in a straight line facing North, with equal distance between each other but not necessarily in the same order. Only two persons sit to the left of I. Only one person sits between I and U. H sits fourth to the right of R. R is not an immediate neighbour of U. Less than three persons sit between R and U. Number of persons sitting between I and U is half as that between H and J. Only three persons sit between K and T. K is not an immediate neighbour of J. Only two persons sit between T and G.In which of the given pairs of persons, is odd number of persons sitting between them?
...