CLAT 2022 || Free Study Plan Week 3 Revision Quiz || 04.04.2021
Attempt now to get your rank among 48 students!
Question 1
If we look back on the great political revolutions and great technological revolutions (both of which are clues to the range of mankind’s capacities and possibilities), we see a striking contrast. Political revolutions, generally speaking, have revealed man's organized purposefulness, his social conscience, his sense of justice, the aggressive assertive side of his nature. Technological change, invention and innovation have tended, rather, to reveal his play instinct, his desire and his ability to go where he has never gone, to do what he has never done. The one shows his willingness to sacrifice in order to fulfill his plans, the other his willingness to sacrifice in order to pursue his quest. Many of the peculiar successes and special problems of our time come from our efforts to assimilate these two kinds of activities. We have tried to make government more experimental and to make technological change more purposive, more focused, more planned than ever before.
Question 2
If we look back on the great political revolutions and great technological revolutions (both of which are clues to the range of mankind’s capacities and possibilities), we see a striking contrast. Political revolutions, generally speaking, have revealed man's organized purposefulness, his social conscience, his sense of justice, the aggressive assertive side of his nature. Technological change, invention and innovation have tended, rather, to reveal his play instinct, his desire and his ability to go where he has never gone, to do what he has never done. The one shows his willingness to sacrifice in order to fulfill his plans, the other his willingness to sacrifice in order to pursue his quest. Many of the peculiar successes and special problems of our time come from our efforts to assimilate these two kinds of activities. We have tried to make government more experimental and to make technological change more purposive, more focused, more planned than ever before.
Question 3
If we look back on the great political revolutions and great technological revolutions (both of which are clues to the range of mankind’s capacities and possibilities), we see a striking contrast. Political revolutions, generally speaking, have revealed man's organized purposefulness, his social conscience, his sense of justice, the aggressive assertive side of his nature. Technological change, invention and innovation have tended, rather, to reveal his play instinct, his desire and his ability to go where he has never gone, to do what he has never done. The one shows his willingness to sacrifice in order to fulfill his plans, the other his willingness to sacrifice in order to pursue his quest. Many of the peculiar successes and special problems of our time come from our efforts to assimilate these two kinds of activities. We have tried to make government more experimental and to make technological change more purposive, more focused, more planned than ever before.
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
In a certain code language,
‘have your own faith’ is coded as ‘na ra bi va’
‘place your own have’ is coded as ‘ra bi na ua’
‘book own ticket down’ is coded as ‘pa ji ia ra’
‘have offer prize book’ is coded as ‘bi oi lo ia’
What is the code for ‘ticket’ in the given language?
Question 7
In a certain code language,
‘have your own faith’ is coded as ‘na ra bi va’
‘place your own have’ is coded as ‘ra bi na ua’
‘book own ticket down’ is coded as ‘pa ji ia ra’
‘have offer prize book’ is coded as ‘bi oi lo ia’
Question 8
Question 9
“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”
At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.
“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82nd amendmet an 11th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”
Webs of duties
The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.
Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.
Issue lies in conflation
The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.
Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.
Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.
[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]
Question 10
“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”
At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.
“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82nd amendmet an 11th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”
Webs of duties
The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.
Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.
Issue lies in conflation
The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.
Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.
Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.
[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]
Reasoning: Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences.
Question 11
Question 12
Question 13
Question 14
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17
Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word.
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word.
- 48 attempts
- 1 upvote
- 0 comments