Its very simple. An increase in the nation's income would cause the nation's residents to buy more domestic as well as foreign goods. The increased demand for foreign goods would increase the demand for imports. The increased demand for imports would result in increased demand for foreign currency.
In Q.1 (3) statement is correct as per the AFSPA(Amendment), 1972. option 2 also seems correct by going thru following passage:-
The Attorney General of India responded that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a "war footing." He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance, and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.
As far as statement 3 is concerned , the act including the act which you quote says that "Governor of that State or the Central Government, is of opinion that the whole or any part of the State is in such a disturbed and dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary to prevent" ………………..
The amendment extended the power to Centre, dis not gave the exclusive power to centre. The statement holds incorrect because I am using "ONLY Central Government " in my statement.
—————————————— Regarding statement 2, what you are quoting was an argument of the CAG in favour of the act; neither constitution nor this act itself says that AFSPA was ever mandated by constitution article 355. The debate is itself on the viability of this act. The argument of CAG can not prove that it was enacted because it was mandated in the Article 355 of the constitution.
The only article relevent to this act was the article 257 which was inserted in the constitution by 42nd amendment act. This said: 257-Assistance to States by deployment of armed forces or other forces of the Union. —(1) The Government of India may deploy any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union for dealing with any grave situation of law and order in any State.
But this article was deleted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act.
Another entry in the constitution which is relevent to this act is Entry 2A in the Union List. It says: Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power, powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment."
Similar entry is in state list 1. Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof] in aid of the civil power).
So, the conclusion is that if my statement says that the act was enacted because of Article 355 mandated it, it is utterly wrong.
u may be correct for statement 3, actually here is my source This Section gives power to the Centre or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or a part of the State or Territory as disturbed areas. However, in the 1972 Amendment of the AFSPA, the power to declare disturbed area was taken away from the State government and now only the central government has this power.
Thanks Sunil for taking immense interest in the topic. actually I read the story quoted by you, the fact is little twisted, though the author did not mean to twist the fact. The best refernce is the bare act. and what is quoted in 1972 bare act I am quoting here:
1. This Act may be called the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers (Amendment) Act 1972.
2. In the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in the long title, for the words “in the State of Assam and the Union Territory of Manipur” the words “in the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram” shall be substituted.
3. In section1 of the principal Act(a) in sub-section (1) for the words, brackets and figures “the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act 1958″ the words, brackets and figures “the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958″ shall be substituted:(b) for sub-section (2) the following sub section shall be substituted, namely: (2) It extends to the whole of the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
4. For section 3 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely: [5] If in relation to any State or Union Territory to which this Act extends, the Governor of the State or the Administrator of the Union Territory, as the case may be, is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of Armed Forces in aid of civil power is necessary, the Governor of the State of the Administrator of that Union Territory or the Central Government, as the case may be, may, by notification in the Official Gazetter, declare the whole or such State of Union Territory to be a disturbed area.
5. As from the Commencement of this Act, the principal Act, as extended by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs No GSR 1970, dated 25th November 1970 to the then existing Union Territory of Tripura, shall cease to operate in the State of Tripura.
Source: Extraordinary Laws in India. Indian Social Institute. New Delhi: 2002
The first statement I am using is When a country follows the free trade policy, it necessary follows that there would be "no taxes" , excise duties etc. of any type.
This is an ambiguous statement , how can you corelate taxes with free trade. Further, even if a country follows free trade regime, how can all the duties can be removed.
the second statement says The imposition of an import duty by a country worsens the nations "trade balance" and reduces the volume of trade
we shoud note that Trade Balance improves when imports reduce, keeping all other things constant. So, if I say, imposition of import duty will worsen the trade balance, I am incorrect. But yes,it reduces the volume of trade, but i used, this second clause to disguise the "trade Balance" concept which is easiest thing to know when we study international trade.
hello sir..
you are doing a fine job..what the institutions are trying to give for high fees are nothing when compared to your quizzes…extremely useful and the explanations given by you are excellent…i really regret for not knowing this site before..thankyou for your service sir!!
₹0.00
Bhaskar Kakani
March 25, 2011 at 3:07 amExcellent quiz..thank u sir..
Could you explain how statement 2 of Q5 is true?
Admin
March 25, 2011 at 3:54 amIts very simple. An increase in the nation's income would cause the nation's residents to buy more domestic as well as foreign goods. The increased demand for foreign goods would increase the demand for imports. The increased demand for imports would result in increased demand for foreign currency.
Sunil Sharma
March 25, 2011 at 4:12 amIn Q.1 (3) statement is correct as per the AFSPA(Amendment), 1972.
option 2 also seems correct by going thru following passage:-
The Attorney General of India responded that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a "war footing." He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance, and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.
Plz reply ASAP.
Admin
March 25, 2011 at 5:47 amAs far as statement 3 is concerned , the act including the act which you quote says that "Governor of that State or the Central Government, is of opinion that the whole or any part of the State is in such a disturbed and dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary to prevent" ………………..
The amendment extended the power to Centre, dis not gave the exclusive power to centre. The statement holds incorrect because I am using "ONLY Central Government " in my statement.
——————————————
Regarding statement 2, what you are quoting was an argument of the CAG in favour of the act; neither constitution nor this act itself says that AFSPA was ever mandated by constitution article 355. The debate is itself on the viability of this act. The argument of CAG can not prove that it was enacted because it was mandated in the Article 355 of the constitution.
The only article relevent to this act was the article 257 which was inserted in the constitution by 42nd amendment act. This said:
257-Assistance to States by deployment of armed forces or other forces of the Union. —(1) The Government of India may deploy any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to
the control of the Union for dealing with any grave situation of law and order in any State.
But this article was deleted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act.
Another entry in the constitution which is relevent to this act is Entry 2A in the Union List. It says: Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power, powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment."
Similar entry is in state list 1.
Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof] in aid of the civil power).
So, the conclusion is that if my statement says that the act was enacted because of Article 355 mandated it, it is utterly wrong.
Anonymous
March 25, 2011 at 8:35 pmthis quiz is exceptionslly good.
Sunil Sharma
March 25, 2011 at 10:03 pmu may be correct for statement 3, actually here is my source
This Section gives power to the Centre or the Governor of a State or Administrator of a Union Territory to declare the whole or a part of the State or Territory as disturbed areas. However, in the 1972 Amendment of the AFSPA, the power to declare disturbed area was taken away from the State government and now only the central government has this power.
which i took from http://www.nagalandpost.com/ShowStory.aspx?npoststoryiden=UzEwMzM1MDA%3D-5QcxZRmoo7A%3D
And yes some other sources saying it other ways that power was extended to central government.
plz provide some authentic source or govt site if possible
kishan
March 26, 2011 at 3:35 amsuperb quiz sir
hats off to you
bharath
March 26, 2011 at 6:02 amIf there is an increase in India's imports from UK, the income of UK will tend to increase
can you provide an explanation for this?
Anonymous
March 26, 2011 at 11:42 amHello Sir,
A very good explanation given for every question. This is Prem, kindly suggest how to start the preparation for Civil Services Exam.
Admin
March 26, 2011 at 9:35 pm@ Sunil
Thanks Sunil for taking immense interest in the topic. actually I read the story quoted by you, the fact is little twisted, though the author did not mean to twist the fact. The best refernce is the bare act. and what is quoted in 1972 bare act I am quoting here:
1. This Act may be called the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers (Amendment) Act 1972.
2. In the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in the long title, for the words “in the State of Assam and the Union Territory of Manipur” the words “in the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram” shall be substituted.
3. In section1 of the principal Act(a) in sub-section (1) for the words, brackets and figures “the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act 1958″ the words, brackets and figures “the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958″ shall be substituted:(b) for sub-section (2) the following sub section shall be substituted, namely:
(2) It extends to the whole of the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
4. For section 3 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:
[5] If in relation to any State or Union Territory to which this Act extends, the Governor of the State or the Administrator of the Union Territory, as the case may be, is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of Armed Forces in aid of civil power is necessary, the Governor of the State of the Administrator of that Union Territory or the Central Government, as the case may be, may, by notification in the Official Gazetter, declare the whole or such State of Union Territory to be a disturbed area.
5. As from the Commencement of this Act, the principal Act, as extended by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs No GSR 1970, dated 25th November 1970 to the then existing Union Territory of Tripura, shall cease to operate in the State of Tripura.
Source: Extraordinary Laws in India. Indian Social Institute. New Delhi: 2002
gsingh2011 singh
March 27, 2011 at 12:13 amExcellent Quiz
Ritesh Singh Chahar
March 27, 2011 at 10:52 amSir,
Can you please explain question no. 3?
As increasing Import Duties, Trade also weakens.
Sathya
March 27, 2011 at 12:42 pmHi Admin,
Thanks for the clarifications on AFSPA.
In question 3, could you elaborate on why statement 1 is incorrect.
Is it not that when a country follows Free trade policy, there is no intervention from Govt in trade ( i.e. no duties and barriers).
Admin
March 27, 2011 at 10:19 pmOn question 3:
The first statement I am using is
When a country follows the free trade policy, it necessary follows that there would be "no taxes" , excise duties etc. of any type.
This is an ambiguous statement , how can you corelate taxes with free trade. Further, even if a country follows free trade regime, how can all the duties can be removed.
the second statement says
The imposition of an import duty by a country worsens the nations "trade balance" and reduces the volume of trade
we shoud note that Trade Balance improves when imports reduce, keeping all other things constant. So, if I say, imposition of import duty will worsen the trade balance, I am incorrect. But yes,it reduces the volume of trade, but i used, this second clause to disguise the "trade Balance" concept which is easiest thing to know when we study international trade.
Sathya
March 28, 2011 at 5:57 amThank you !
That was very informative.
I enjoy taking the daily quizes. Thanks for that too.
Ritesh Singh Chahar
March 28, 2011 at 7:36 amMany topics can be covered by taking one test.
Thanks a lot!
Anonymous
March 30, 2011 at 1:13 pmExceptionally good work….Quiz and as well as the comments. I wish I would have known about it earlier.
sabarmathi
May 18, 2011 at 2:18 amhello sir..
you are doing a fine job..what the institutions are trying to give for high fees are nothing when compared to your quizzes…extremely useful and the explanations given by you are excellent…i really regret for not knowing this site before..thankyou for your service sir!!
admin
May 19, 2011 at 12:12 pmwelcome Sabarmathi :)
udaya kumar
April 28, 2013 at 5:41 pmnothing can be comparable to your honest work Great sir