Newspaper Editorials With English Vocab 19/2/2016

#theHindu #NewyorkTimes #MoscowTimes #TheDawn #IndianExpress #Business Standard

THE HINDU: Restore propriety in Arunachal Pradesh

The revocation of President’s Rule in any State ought to be welcomed, as it paves the way for the installation of a popular government.

The latest Supreme Court order allowing the Union government to withdraw the proclamation bringing Arunachal Pradesh under Central rule may end the prevailing uncertainty and help avoid a constitutional vacuum, but it may not prevent more legal tangles. There will certainly be a political tussle over the course of action that Governor J.P. Rajkhowa ought to adopt as soon as the suspended Assembly is revived. The Congress argues that its regime headed by former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki will stand automatically restored. However, there is enough indication that the Governor’s favoured option will be to invite the Congress rebel Kalikho Pul, who has the backing of the Bharatiya Janata Party, to form the government. Mr. Pul may have little difficulty in passing a floor test as he claims the support of 32 MLAs in the Assembly, which now is 58-strong. While lifting its earlier directive to maintain the status quo, the Constitution Bench has not interfered with the Gauhati High Court order staying the disqualification of 14 legislators by Speaker Nabam Rebia. This may mean that the 14 Congress dissidents will be allowed to vote on the confidence motion. At the same time, the Bench has asked the High Court to expedite the final hearing on their petitions challenging the legality of their disqualification.

Legally, there is no bar on the Governor inviting anyone who, in his opinion, is in a position to command a majority to form the government as early as possible. However, a question will surely arise as to whether he should not first allow Mr. Tuki an opportunity to test his majority, especially if the 14 MLAs whose disqualification has been stayed are allowed to vote. Another issue of propriety would be whether the Governor should ask for a vote in the House before the High Court decides on the validity of their disqualification. And if Mr. Pul is invited first and he demonstrates his majority thanks to the clutch of Congress rebels with him, a piquant situation would arise if the Constitution Bench declares the imposition of President’s Rule illegal. The Tuki regime may have to be reinstated even though the House has reposed faith in another Chief Minister! There is little doubt that constitutional propriety has taken a beating in Arunachal Pradesh in the last couple of months. The list of unseemly developments is long. Dissidents managed to unseat a Chief Minister with active support from the Raj Bhavan, whose incumbent advanced a scheduled Assembly session; a farcical ‘sitting’ of the Assembly took place at a makeshift venue; questionable resolutions were passed to ‘remove’ the Speaker and the Chief Minister, and President’s Rule was imposed in the midst of a Supreme Court hearing. Indisputably, democracy works through political processes, but it becomes a travesty when partisan politics overshadows constitutional norms.

pro·pri·e·ty

The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.

revocation

The state of being cancelled or annulled

paves the way

clears the problem

proc·la·ma·tion

A public or official announcement, especially one dealing with a matter of great importance.

pre·vail·ing

Existing at a particular time; current.

vac·u·um

A space entirely devoid of matter.

tan·gle

Twist together into a confused mass.

tus·sle

A vigorous struggle or scuffle, typically in order to obtain or achieve something.

dis·si·dent

A person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state.

bar

A long rod or rigid piece of wood, metal, or similar material, typically used as an obstruction, fastening, or weapon.

clutch

Grasp or seize (something) tightly or eagerly.

pi·quant

Having a pleasantly sharp taste or appetizing flavor.

im·po·si·tion

The action or process of imposing something or of being imposed.

re·in·state

Restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.

in·cum·bent

Necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility.

far·ci·cal

Of or resembling a farce, especially because of absurd or ridiculous aspects.

trav·es·ty

A false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

something that ​fails to ​represent the ​values and ​qualities that it is ​intended to ​represent, in a way that is ​shocking or ​offensive

o·ver·shad·ow

Tower above and cast a shadow over.

THE HINDU: A landmark for Indian scientists

The Union Cabinet has finally granted in-principle approval for a gravitational wave detector in India. The clearance, awaited for five years, comes close on the heels of the detection of the elusive gravitational waves for the first time; the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) based in Washington and Louisiana in the U.S. found evidence of gravitational wavescoming from two black holes colliding and fusing together 1.3 billion light years away. By virtue of having the same sensitivity as the LIGO detectors in the U.S. and being geographically separated by thousands of kilometres, the Rs.1,200-crore LIGO-India project, scheduled to become operational in about eight years, will at once vastly improve the level of accuracy and ability to detect new gravitational wave events. Since all detectors may not be operational all the time — for instance, the VIRGO detector, based near Pisa in Italy, had remained shut on September 14, 2015 — the addition of an Indian detector will increase the chances of detecting events that generate gravitational waves. When the advanced LIGO and LIGO-India detectors reach their full sensitivity, many more events will become detectable and the ability to detect faraway signals would also increase dramatically. For instance, 50 to 100 gravitational wave-generating events a year may become detectable. And in the case of neutron stars, signals from as far away as 600 million light years could be detected as compared with 200 million light years now.

Though Indian scientists were part of the LIGO project, their involvement was limited to theoretical aspects and data analysis. The LIGO-India project will change this altogether as the construction, commissioning and running of the observatory will be India’s responsibility. It will offer unprecedented opportunities for Indian industry and scientists from diverse fields to be actively involved in a scientific project of a scale never before seen in the country. For instance, though many of the critical components such as mirrors and lasers will be shipped from the U.S., an ultra-high capacity vacuum system that can handle one million litres of vacuum (as in the case of CERN), and secondary optics, have to be manufactured in India. An active programme to develop optics for the laser system that could be used in future upgrades to the detectors is already under way at the Indore-based Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology. Currently only a few students from Indian institutions are able to participate in the LIGO project, but this will change completely when the observatory becomes operational in India, providing easier access for a larger number of students. Besides playing a pivotal role in gravitational wave astronomy, the Indian observatory could thus be a catalyst in changing the landscape of Indian scientific efforts. Together with other mega projects such as the India-based Neutrino Observatory project, experimental science will at last get a much-needed boost in the country.

land·mark

An object or feature of a landscape or town that is easily seen and recognized from a distance, especially one that enables someone to establish their location.

heel

The back part of the foot below the ankle.

a·wait

(of a person) wait for (an event).

e·lu·sive

Difficult to find, catch, or achieve.

ev·i·dence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

far·a·way

Distant in space or time.

un·prec·e·dent·ed

Never done or known before.

di·verse

Showing a great deal of variety; very different.

piv·ot·al

Of crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else.

BUSINESS STANDARD: Another variable

News of a deal between Saudi Arabia and Russia to freeze their output of crude oil at January 2016 levels has sent a ripple through the world markets, and could not have come at a worse time for India. Saudi Arabia is the force behind the oil-exporters' cartel, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, and Russia is the largest producer of crude oil in the world. This would mark the first deal between OPEC and non-OPEC countries on oil production in over 15 years. The finances of both have been hit by the precipitous fall in the global price of oil - a 70 per cent decline since July 2014 - and so it is not surprising that they are taking a re-look at their output numbers. The initial reaction to the deal was cautious - the biggest question mark was the reaction of Iran, once among the largest exporters in the world, but more recently hit by economic sanctions. With the sanctions now lifted, news that Iran was considering increasing output by 500,000 barrels of crude oil a day had sent prices to a 13-year low in mid-January.

But, when Iran's oil minister met with his counterparts from Venezuela, Iraq and Qatar on Wednesday, the meeting resulted in his stating that the "ceiling" proposed by Russia and Saudi Arabia on production would be a useful step towards stabilising the market. Iran is faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, it expects to increase output to at least recover the market share that it had before sanctions were imposed. On the other hand, more supply would reduce prices even further - and Iran desperately needs a higher return on its crude oil in order to invest in creaking, decades-old refining and extraction infrastructure. Thus it has welcomed the deal without promising to join it. But, certainly, the implication that all stakeholders at least were on board with the idea of a production ceiling deal sent oil prices up by five per cent on Wednesday. While geo-political tension in West Asia means that none of the participants likes each other very much at the moment and there are conflicting views on whether the development would result in higher oil prices, there is little doubt that the producers' incentives to agree on a deal are sharp. Also on Wednesday, the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, cut the rating of a number of oil-exporting countries - including Saudi Arabia's, which was slashed by two points from A+ to A-.

This movement in the oil market's structure has made the future path of oil even more difficult to pin down than usual. But this confusion comes at a difficult time. The Union Budget for 2016-17 is being written, and one of the crucial variables in it is the global oil price. The government's finances have gained considerably from the fall in global oil prices - the estimated price of a barrel of oil in the ongoing financial year's Budget was $70. The difference between that and the actual price will allow the government to do a lot better than it otherwise would. Many traders are expecting a barrel of Brent crude oil to be between $40 and $45 in the summer, but the oil major BP expects it to be closer to $60 by the end of the calendar year 2016. The finance ministry should play it safe and ensure that a higher rather than lower oil price is chosen in the Budget, so that there are no unpleasant surprises to the fiscal arithmetic somewhere in the middle of the coming year.

freeze

(of a liquid) be turned into ice or another solid as a result of extreme cold.

rip·ple

A small wave or series of waves on the surface of water, especially as caused by an object dropping into it or a slight breeze.

car·tel

An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.

pre·cip·i·tous

Dangerously high or steep.

cau·tious

(of a person) careful to avoid potential problems or dangers

sanc·tion

A threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.

coun·ter·part

A person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.

ceil·ing

The upper interior surface of a room or other similar compartment.

creak

(of an object, typically a wooden one) make a harsh, high-pitched sound when being moved or when pressure or weight is applied.

slash

Cut (something) with a violent sweeping movement, typically using a knife or sword

INDIAN EXPRESS: Not just bad debts

Taking suo moto cognisance of The Indian Express report on vaulting loan write-offs in the public sector banks (PSBs), the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the RBI to share with it the names of defaulters who owe more than Rs 500 crore and continue to lead a “lavish lifestyle”. The focus on declaring NPAs — mandated by the RBI — has led to the PSBs declaring sharply reduced profits in the latest round of quarterly earnings. But while those who fall in such a category might invite the most outrage, the truth about PSBs hits closer home. In the absence of long-pending structural reforms, the PSBs have more to contend with than mounting NPAs.

For one, rapid technological changes are sweeping the financial services sector. Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani says the financial sector is poised for its “WhatsApp moment”. This is represented by new applications such as Paytm, which has become the largest mobile wallet in the country within a few years, and handles greater transaction volumes than any other bank. The second key challenge for existing PSBs is from greater competition induced by the RBI in the shape of more banks and a more differentiated pattern of banking, which aims at widening and deepening financial inclusion. Historically, India has been conservative in introducing new banks. But that has changed in the past one year with the introduction of 23 new banks, including universal, payments, and small banks. Both these developments underscore the old dictum — survival of the fittest. But do the PSBs have the staff, the top- and middle-rung managers, to devise a counter-strategy?

The answer is no. And that is the third and most important threat looming over the PSBs. According to a McKinsey & Co survey of 20 PSBs in 2013, an estimated 87 per cent of general managers (GMs), 65 per cent of deputy GMs and 50 per cent of assistant GMs would retire in the current financial year. Thanks to a hiring freeze in the 1990s, by 2020 the number of employees in the PSBs will fall off the proverbial cliff. Reduced profitability of the PSBs, inability to hire laterally as well as comparatively poorer remuneration, imply that even fresh recruitment is not without its challenges. What this means is that the proposed reforms by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley are no longer a matter of choice, but a necessity. Without a structural overhaul, the ongoing clean-up may lead to — as Deepak Parekh, chairman of the HDFC group, has so evocatively described — too much anaesthesia that renders the patient comatose.

cog·ni·zance

Knowledge, awareness, or notice.

vault·ing

Ornamental work in a vaulted roof or ceiling

out·rage

An extremely strong reaction of anger, shock, or indignation.

con·tend

Struggle to surmount (a difficulty or danger)

mount

Climb up (stairs, a hill, or other rising surface).

sweep·ing

Wide in range or effect.

poised

Having a composed and self-assured manner.

in·duce

Succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something.

con·serv·a·tive

Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

dic·tum

A formal pronouncement from an authoritative source.

survival of the fittest.

the ​principle that ​animals and ​plants ​suited to the ​conditionsthey ​live in are more ​likely to ​stay ​alive and ​produce other ​animals and ​plants than those that are not ​suited

de·vise

Plan or invent (a complex procedure, system, or mechanism) by careful thought

coun·ter

Speak or act in opposition to.

loom

Appear as a shadowy form, especially one that is large or threatening.

pro·ver·bi·al

(of a word or phrase) referred to in a proverb or idiom.

cliff

A steep rock face, especially at the edge of the sea.

laterally

To or by or from the side; "such women carry in their heads kinship knowledge of six generations depth and extending laterally among consanguineal kin as far as the grandchildren of second cousin"

re·mu·ner·a·tion

Money paid for work or a service.

o·ver·haul

Take apart (a piece of machinery or equipment) in order to examine it and repair it if necessary.

evocatively

Evocation is the act of calling or summoning a spirit, demon, god or other supernatural agent, in the Western mystery tradition. Comparable practices exist in many religions and magical traditions and may employ the use of pharmakeia with and without uttered word formulas.

an·es·the·sia

Insensitivity to pain, especially as artificially induced by the administration of gases or the injection of drugs before surgical operations

com·a·tose

Of or in a state of deep unconsciousness for a prolonged or indefinite period, especially as a result of severe injury or illness

rend·er

Provide or give (a service, help, etc.

THE NEWYORK TIMES(USA): Resetting the Post-Scalia Supreme Court

In the days since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, there has been plenty of talk about the substantial impact his absence will have on the Supreme Court’s docket. I’d like to shift the focus to the Roberts court itself.

Fate has handed the justices a chance to hit reset.

If that seems an uncharitable, even tasteless observation, so be it. I’ve become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalia’s outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.

I’m not claiming that he was completely responsible. Given the Supreme Court’s place in American life, there is no way it can avoid getting singed by the polarizing politics of the day. Nor was Justice Scalia solely to blame for the court’s drop in public esteem as demonstrated by a Gallup Poll in September showing that more people disapprove of the Supreme Court (50 percent) than approve of it (45 percent). While this is a notable departure from the historic trend, other governmental bodies have fared far worse (Congress has a 16 percent approval rating), and the court is to some degree caught in the back draft of generalized public mistrust of government.

It’s a situation that nonetheless calls for concern and exquisite care. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to reflect that concern, and not for the first time, when he spoke earlier this month at New England School of Law in Boston. Contrary to the impression created by highly partisan Senate confirmation hearings, he said, Supreme Court justices are not in pursuit of an agenda and “don’t work as Republicans or Democrats.”

Maybe not, but two weeks before the chief justice’s visit to Boston, the court, acting on its own motion, turned a statutory case into a major constitutional one when it expanded its review of President Obama’s deportation-deferral program to include the question of whether the president has violated his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” And a few days after the Boston visit, the court tookthe astonishing step of blocking the administration’s major climate-change initiative before a lower court had even had a chance to review it.

The “take care” question mapped perfectly onto the dissent that Justice Scalia read from the bench in June 2012 when the court struck downportions of Arizona’s anti-immigrant statute. (Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority.) Justice Scalia took the occasion to excoriate the Obama administration for an earlier version of its deportation-deferral program — a policy that was not at issue in the Supreme Court case and had not even been announced when the case was argued.

“Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia demanded, in a public performance that was as inappropriate as it was attention getting.

The Feb. 9 order blocking the president’s Clean Power Plan was issued without explanation and over the dissents of the court’s four liberals. I don’t know whether Justice Scalia was the driving force behind this highly unusual intervention in an ongoing regulatory review. But clearly it couldn’t have happened without him. Neither could the court’s other recent destabilizing interventions, including the 5-to-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The voting rights decision was a pet project of Chief Justice Roberts, an opponent of the Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. But Justice Scalia was much more than just a passenger. His behavior during the oral argument gave a public face to the ugliness behind the attack on the foundational civil rights law, which both houses of Congress had reauthorized by overwhelming margins.

Addressing Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. during the argument on Feb. 27, 2013, Justice Scalia referred to the 2006 reauthorization and observed:

“And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”

A “phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement”? “It’s been written about”? I must have missed that reading assignment.

Then, two months ago, Justice Scalia’s comment during the argument in the University of Texas affirmative-action case embraced the so-called mismatch theory beloved by opponents of affirmative action when he said that some minority students would benefit from “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.” I can only assume that somewhere out there is a tract that equates protection of the right to vote with perpetuation of racial entitlement.

His frequent parroting of right-wing talking points in recent years may have reflected the contraction of his intellectual universe. In an interview with the writer Jennifer Senior (now a New York Times book critic) in New York magazine in 2013, Justice Scalia said he got most of his news from the car radio and from skimming The Wall Street Journal and the conservative Washington Times. He said he stopped reading The Washington Post because it had become so “shrilly, shrilly liberal” that he “couldn’t handle it anymore.”

And while earlier in his Supreme Court tenure, he prided himself on hiring one politically liberal law clerk among his four clerks every year, he abandoned that practice at least a decade ago. In a recently completed (and as yet unpublished) study, Neal Devins, a law professor at William and Mary, and Lawrence Baum, a political scientist at Ohio State, calculated the percentage of each justice’s law clerks over the past 11 years who had previously clerked for a Democratic-appointed judge on a lower court. (This is a measure that scholars deem an acceptable proxy for the ideological orientation of a justice’s chambers.) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ranked the highest, with 76.7 percent of her clerks having earlier clerked for Democratic-appointed judges. The figure for Chief Justice Roberts was 16.3 percent. Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas were tied for the lowest, at 2.3 percent each.

In their paper, “Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court Into a Partisan Court,” the authors offer their observations about the elite social networks in which Supreme Court justices, no less than other power players in Washington, spend their lives. They note “a growing ideological divide among affluent, well-educated Democrats and Republicans,” with the result that “Democratic elites are more liberal than other Democrats; Republican elites are more conservative than other Republicans.” For the Supreme Court, they conclude, “justices on both the left and right are part of social networks that reinforce conservatism for Republican justices and liberalism for Democratic justices.”

These insights might help explain why someone as smart as Antonin Scalia seemed so un-self-conscious about his inflammatory rhetoric. He was simply giving voice to those he spent his time with. His world was one that reinforced and never challenged him.

About 10 years ago, I attended a gathering of Canadian judges and lawyers at Cambridge University. Justice Scalia gave his stump speech there about how his Constitution was not “living” but “dead,” with legitimate constitutional interpretation limited to the words and original understanding of the document’s authors. He may or may not have known that in Canada, constitutional interpretation starts from the premise that “the Constitution is a living tree.” In any event, his speech fell flat; rather than greeting his remarks with the appreciative chuckles and applause he usually received, the audience sat on its hands. I remember his disconcerted expression.

Justice Scalia received relatively few opinion assignments in major cases, either from Chief Justice Roberts or Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, with whom he served for 19 years. The reason was obvious: He refused to compromise, a trait that put him at risk of losing a majority in close cases. I used to wonder why he didn’t value effectiveness over perfection, why he would not rather compromise than lose. But I came to realize that Justice Scalia wasn’t playing the inside game. No matter that he never persuaded a majority of his fellow conservatives on the court to sign up for his brand of originalism.

What mattered was his ability to invoke originalism as a mobilizing tool outside the court, in speeches and in dissenting opinions. The message was that courts have no business recognizing “new” rights. (Except, evidently, new rights of which Justice Scalia approved, such as an unconstrained right for corporations to spend money in politics.) The audience for his dissents, he told Ms. Senior in the New York magazine interview, was law students. The mission he set for himself was cultivating the next generation.

For a long time, he did a good job of addressing the public outside the court’s marble walls. In 2003, his dissenting opinion in the gay rights caseLawrence v. Texas warned that the court’s declaration of constitutional protection for same-sex relationships would lead to protection for same-sex marriage. State after state heeded the warning and enacted same-sex marriage bans.

Ten years later, when he dissented from the court’s overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, which found that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits, he warned that the decision made the constitutional right to same-sex marriage inevitable. “No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe,” he wrote.

Within a matter of months, federal district judges around the country invoked Justice Scalia’s dissent in striking down same-sex marriage bans. The much less polemical dissent in Windsor by Chief Justice Roberts, describing the decision as a narrow one based on principles of federalism, went uncited.

Had Justice Scalia overreached? Lost his touch? Or had times changed so that not even the most mild-mannered dissent could have stemmed the tide? Hard to say. Still, people listened, just as they did last June when the court ruled for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges and Justice Scalia wrote that before he would ever join such an opinion “I would hide my head in a bag.”

Since everyone who ever met Justice Scalia is telling Scalia stories, I’ll tell mine. The last conversation we had took place in the spring of 2013, on a Washington-bound Amtrak Acela. I noticed him sitting across the aisle from me, wearing headphones and working. He didn’t notice me, and I didn’t bother him. But when we stood to collect our things, we found ourselves face to face. “So, Linda,” he said, “what do you think of the new pope?”

This was such an unexpected conversation opener that I didn’t know what to say. Pope Francis had been chosen just a few days earlier. I was hardly qualified to discuss the first Jesuit pope with a Jesuit-trained Supreme Court justice. “I’m surprised they picked someone so old,” I finally managed.

“Well, he’s a transitional figure,” Justice Scalia said.

I was too nonplused to ask him what he meant: transition from what to what? (I can only imagine how the deeply traditional, Latin Mass-attending Justice Scalia came to regard Pope Francis as time went by.) Our train pulled into Union Station and the moment passed.

Antonin Scalia was, as everyone has noted, a unique figure on the Supreme court. Will he prove to have been a transitional one as well? Will originalism, having served its purpose, now leave the stage?

For the court and the country, this is an important moment in every possible respect. As Justice Scalia’s colleagues gather later this week for the ceremonial marking of his passing, they will be taking stock of a life. Some of them, perhaps, will also be taking stock of the court, where it has been and where it goes now.

sub·stan·tial

Of considerable importance, size, or worth.

im·pact

The action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another.

dock·et

A calendar or list of cases for trial or people having cases pending.

fate

The development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.

un·char·i·ta·ble

(of a person's behavior or attitude toward others) unkind; unsympathetic.

con·cern

Relate to; be about.

out·size

Exceptionally large.

Off and on

happening or ​existing only some of the ​time:

po·lar·ize

Restrict the vibrations of (a transverse wave, especially light) wholly or partially to one direction.

dis·ap·prove

Have or express an unfavorable opinion about something.

no·ta·ble

Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.

none·the·less

In spite of that; nevertheless.

ex·quis·ite

Extremely beautiful and, typically, delicate

pur·suit

The action of following or pursuing someone or something.

de·por·ta·tion

The action of deporting a foreigner from a country.

deferral

A state of abeyance or suspended business

to ​delay something until a ​later ​time

ex·e·cute

Carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action)

dis·sent

Hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.

stat·ute

A written law passed by a legislative body.

ex·co·ri·ate

Censure or criticize severely.

en·force

Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).

gut 

› to ​destroy the inside of a ​building ​completely, usually by ​fire:A ​fire gutted the ​bookshop last ​week.

o·ver·whelm·ing

Very great in amount.

en·act·ment

The process of passing legislation.

attributable

Capable of being attributed

perpetuation

Prolongation: the act of prolonging something; "there was an indefinite prolongation of the peace talks"

en·ti·tle·ment

The fact of having a right to something.

com·port

Conduct oneself; behave.

em·brace

Hold (someone) closely in one's arms, especially as a sign of affection.

mis·match

A failure to correspond or match; a discrepancy.

tract

An area of indefinite extent, typically a large one.

par·rot

Repeat mechanically.

con·serv·a·tive

Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

shrilly

 used to ​describe a way of ​arguing or ​criticizingthat ​seems too ​forceful:

ten·ure

The conditions under which land or buildings are held or occupied.

pride

Be especially proud of a particular quality or skill.

a·ban·don

Give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking).

polarization

The phenomenon in which waves of light or other radiation are restricted in direction of vibration

af·flu·ent

(especially of a group or area) having a great deal of money; wealthy.

e·lite

A select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

re·in·force

Strengthen or support, especially with additional personnel or material.

in·flam·ma·to·ry

Relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body.

rhet·o·ric

The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques

re·in·force

Strengthen or support, especially with additional personnel or material.

chuck·le

Laugh quietly or inwardly.

ap·plause

Approval or praise expressed by clapping

dis·con·cert

Disturb the composure of; unsettle.

per·suade

Cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

in·voke

Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument

dis·sent

Hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.

un·con·strained

Not restricted or limited.

cul·ti·vate

Prepare and use (land) for crops or gardening.

o·ver·turn

Tip (something) over so that it is on its side or upside down.

in·ev·i·ta·ble

Certain to happen; unavoidable.

in·voke

Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.

po·lem·i·cal

Of, relating to, or involving strongly critical, controversial, or disputatious writing or speech.

tran·si·tion·al

Relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition.

non·plussed

(of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react.

pulled into 

 If a ​vehicle ​pulls in or ​pulls into ​somewhere, it ​moves in that ​direction and ​stops there:He ​pulled in at the ​side of the ​road.I ​pulled into the ​empty ​parking ​space.

The Guardian(uk) view on Turkey’s Kurdish policies: compounding the region’s troubles

Turkey’s misguided policies have been taking that pivotal country in the wrong direction for several years. Now the errors and contradictions apparent in its domestic politics are becoming a major international problem, threatening to widen the conflict wracking the region in which until recently it was a force for stability and sanity.

The fighting in south-eastern Turkey between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers’ party, or PKK, is getting worse, and it is merging with the increasingly hot war between Turkey and the Kurds of northern Syria. While responsibility for bombings is hard to assign with certainty, it looks as if it is now reaching out to threaten Turkey’s capital, Ankara, in the shape of attacks like the one earlier this week which killed 28 soldiers and civilians in the centre of the city. The shelling of Kurdish positions in Syria and Kurdish return fire into Turkey is of a piece with the violence in the south-east, with fierce security sweeps there countered by ambushes and bombings.

The obvious threat the war between Turks and Kurds presents is that Turkish troops might intervene on the ground in Syria, ostensibly to create a safe haven for refugees or a buffer zone, but in fact to halt the military progress of the Syrian Kurds, whose army, the People’s Protection Units, or YPG, has been seizing territory along the border in recent days. The prospect which President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan fears is that the Syrian Kurds will be able to create a permanent mini-state on Syrian soil, stiffening the PKK in its opposition to Ankara, and influencing the Iraqi Kurds as well. The Turkish nightmare of a unified Kurdistan might then in theory not be too far away.

The YPG enjoy the support of the Americans, who have found them useful in the fight against Islamic State, and perhaps also of the Russians, who regard them as in effect neutral in their fight against the Assad regime’s enemies. If Turkish troops went into Syria, the Russians could react militarily. The Turks might then invoke the Nato alliance and the fat would be in the fire. Fortunately, it is unlikely that this scenario will come to pass, and more likely that the Turks will continue to try to persuade the powers, probably in vain, that the YPG are terrorists who should be repudiated or at least persuaded to halt their offensive.

Mr Erdoğan’s Turkey has boxed itself in. The fragmentation of Iraq and Syria handed Kurds in those countries advantages that Ankara had not expected. Having perhaps never been truly serious about a settlement with Turkish Kurds, it then let the peace process slip away, and now finds its foreign policy warped through and through by its obsession with blocking the Kurds, to the point where it seems blind to all other considerations.

It is hard to remember now that less than a year ago the Turkish government was still in peace talks with the PKK, and that only a few years before its reputation for reliability and pragmatism was such that it enjoyed good relations with Israel, Iran and Iraq, as well as close ties with Europe, America and Russia. Today, all those once healthy connections are at least frayed, and in some cases broken. The immediate danger of cross-border fighting may be averted. But until Turkey radically realigns its policies around the pursuit of peace with its own Kurds, it will continue to add to the region’s troubles rather than help to contain them.

mis·guid·ed

Having or showing faulty judgment or reasoning.

piv·ot·al

Of crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else

ap·par·ent

Clearly visible or understood; obvious.

rack

Cause extreme physical or mental pain to; subject to extreme stress

san·i·ty

The ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health.

 reaching out

        to ​offer ​help and ​support to someone:

fierce

Having or displaying an intense or ferocious aggressiveness.

sweep

Clean (an area) by brushing away dirt or litter.

coun·ter

Speak or act in opposition to.

am·bush

A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.

troop

A group of soldiers, especially a cavalry unit commanded by a captain, or an airborne unit.

in·ter·vene

Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

os·ten·si·bly

Apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.

buff·er

A person or thing that prevents incompatible or antagonistic people or things from coming into contact with or harming each other.

halt

Bring or come to an abrupt stop.

stiff·en·ing

Material used to stiffen a garment, fabric, or other object

in·voke

Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.

per·suade

Cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

re·pu·di·ate

Refuse to accept or be associated with.

boxed itself in

to ​prevent someone from doing what they ​want to do:

frag·men·ta·tion

The process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts.

prag·ma·tism

A pragmatic attitude or policy

frayed

(of a fabric, rope, or cord) unraveled or worn at the edge.

a·vert

Turn away (one's eyes or thoughts).

radically

In a radical manner; "she took a radically different approach"

THE MOSCOW TIMES(RUSSIA): Lessons From Munich: We Need Cooperation, Not Confrontation

Politicians and scholars from all over the world recently gathered at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) to discuss global security issues. Most of the attendees agreed that we have to work together to untie the tangled knot of current threats to peace and stability, with the bulk of responsibility falling on the shoulders of the leading global players — the United States, the European Union, Russia and China. However, we still seem incapable of presenting a collective response even to the most fundamental threats.

Regulars of the MSC remember President Vladimir Putin's famous Munich Speech of 2007 very well. Observers would then often refer to the speech as one manifesting a strategic turn in Russia's foreign policy and a challenge to the United States and the West.

I believe this interpretation of the Munich Speech to be deeply flawed. Nine years ago the Russian president was trying to warn Russia's partners of where we can find ourselves if we disregard fundamental norms of international law, rely on unilateral action and military force as a way of resolving issues instead of seeking political solutions, and let our leaders be irresponsible and arrogant.

All that is left for us to do today is lament the fact that Russia's voice was not heard: Many of the concerns expressed by the Russian leader have become a harsh reality. In the nine years since the Munich Speech, the world has not become a safer, more stable or just place. And this goes for the West as well, including the United States. Our will to work together has not only weakened, it has sunk to a historical low.

The way Syria was discussed in Munich is a vivid example of this lack of trust and willingness to engage in joint action. Russian politicians and diplomats reiterated that Moscow considered its actions in Syria to be a contribution to the global effort to combat the existential threat of Islamic fundamentalism and an attempt to save Syrian statehood and prevent it from descending into chaos. But many of the American and European participants saw Russia's military operation as nothing more than a case of the Kremlin's imperial ambition and an attempt to keep in place a regime loyal to Moscow.

Discussions on Euro-Atlantic security were equally strained. Just like with Syria, Russia and the West are anything but united on the issue, and their positions continue to diverge. Instead of combining our efforts to combat common security threats (terrorism and other forms of extremism, migration, etc.) we have essentially entered a new phase of the arms race. It is not a giant leap, for example, to assume that once the United States has deployed its missile defense system in Poland, Russia will respond by deploying its own Iskander missile defense system in Kaliningrad.

We all remember the missile crisis of the mid-1980s, and many have the feeling that history is repeating itself. During the Cold War, however, we had various mechanisms for dialogue available. There was a common strategic culture of deterrence. We do not have any of that now, and that is why any incident in Europe or elsewhere could give rise to a major conflict.

The Munich Security Conference participants were unanimous in seeing significant deterioration of the circumstances for discussing new initiatives for integrated Euro-Atlantic security. Most importantly, trust has been broken completely, and without trust, it is hardly possible to build a new security system. Rebuilding trust is a painstakingly difficult process, which even in the best-case scenario will take many years.

At the same time, neither Russia nor the West have the time to stall cooperation. Therefore, the most practical and productive thing to do right now would be to build cooperation around concrete issues where our interests overlap. And this is precisely what Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov talked about in Munich.

Combating international terrorism and preventing political extremism are just some of the possible areas of cooperation, as are managing migration flows and solving the refugee problem, strengthening cyber and food security, tackling environmental issues and coordinating positions on climate change.

At the latest Munich Security Conference, Russian politicians once again confirmed their willingness to engage in dialogue. And, as before, Russia called for dialogue among equal partners, partners who are ready to listen to one another and take the interests of all sides into account. This is the only approach that will make it possible to lay the foundations for long-term and stable cooperation

con·fron·ta·tion

A hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

tan·gled

Twisted together untidily; matted.

man·i·fest

Display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate.

la·ment

A passionate expression of grief or sorrow.

viv·id

Producing powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind.

re·it·er·ate

Say something again or a number of times, typically for emphasis or clarity

de·scend

Move or fall downward.

cha·os

Complete disorder and confusion.

im·pe·ri·al

Of or relating to an empire.

strained

(of an atmosphere, situation, or relationship) not relaxed or comfortable; tense or uneasy

di·verge

(of a road, route, or line) separate from another route, especially a main one, and go in a different direction.

deterrence

Disincentive: a negative motivational influence

de·te·ri·o·ra·tion

The process of becoming progressively worse.

painstakingly

In a fastidious and painstaking manner; "it is almost a waste of time painstakingly to learn the routines of selling"

Stall

delay

o·ver·lap

Extend over so as to cover partly.

THE DAWN(PAKISTAN): Criticising NAB

NOBODY likes accountability and ferreting out traces of corruption in government affairs, but given the sad realities of our country, it is an indispensable task.

In some form or the other, constant vigilance over government conduct is required by a strong and independent body empowered to detect, investigate and prosecute corruption wherever it may be found

But unfortunately, this is not the only sad reality of our country. In the past, hunting down corruption has taken on a political hue and, on many occasions, the exercise has been selective.

The result is that it is difficult to tell when the National Accountability Bureau is actually pursuing a corruption investigation and when it is allowing its strings to be pulled from the shadows for the purpose of settling political scores.

Today, we have a situation where everybody is annoyed with NAB, the prime minister and the chief ministers, which means they might be doing something right, or perhaps the anti-corruption bureau is drawing its strength from Rawalpindi.

That question will be hard to answer in the absence of strong evidence one way or the other.

What is not hard to see, however, is that those indulging in criticism have no alternative suggestions on how to institutionalise accountability in Pakistan. Keeping accountability under governmental control has aggravated the politicisation of corruption allegations in the past.

In 2004, for instance, NAB famously issued a clean bill of health to the PML-Q leadership while continuing to pursue cases against the opposition leaders.

And who needs to be reminded of how the Ehtesab Bureau acted during the last Nawaz Sharif government in the late 1990s? Even today, evidence of how corruption has become a political football is in painfully high supply.

The PTI, which only recently reformed its own accountability law in KP in an apparent move to clip the powers of the Ehtesab Commission, is assailing the PML-N over the prime minister’s statement that NAB is harassing civil servants and serving as an obstruction to the completion of important projects.

The PPP too seized on the prime minister’s outburst and momentarily forgot its own complaints against the heavy-handed exercise of accountability powers.

The parties need to agree amongst themselves on how to institutionalise accountability in the country, then allow the process to operate.

A truly independent accountability set-up is needed, with its head being chosen by consensus, perhaps along the lines of the ECP.

Stronger rules are also required on what conditions are necessary before an inquiry can be initiated. Above all, a consensus needs to be built on how accountability will proceed in the country, and its writ needs to be respected.

It is an unseemly sight when political parties rally around NAB as it goes after their opponents, and then start to cry foul once it begins to go after them.

ferreting out

to ​find out a ​piece of ​information or ​find someone or something, after ​looking in many ​places or ​asking many ​questions:

in·dis·pen·sa·ble

Absolutely necessary.

vig·i·lance

The action or state of keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties.

pros·e·cute

Institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).

hunting down 

to ​search ​everywhere for someone or something until you ​find him, her, or it:

hue

A color or shade.

in·dulge

Allow oneself to enjoy the pleasure of.

ac·count·a·bil·i·ty

The fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.

ag·gra·vate

Make (a problem, injury, or offense) worse or more serious.

ap·par·ent

Clearly visible or understood; obvious.

as·sail

Make a concerted or violent attack on.

ha·rass

Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

out·burst

A sudden release of strong emotion.

writ

A form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority to act, or abstain from acting, in some way.

un·seem·ly

(of behavior or actions) not proper or appropriate.

 cry foul

to say that something that has ​happened is ​unfair or ​illegal:

 #SSC #IBPS #SBI #RBI #NABARD #NICL #NIACL #CAT #NMAT #everydayquiz