Daily Vocabulary Lesson
25.03.2017
The words in this DVL are taken from ‘The Hindu’ editorial
To receive DCA & DVL on Whatsapp, add 9581233755 to contacts list and send a message (Plz send ALL) from your Whatsapp number.
Terror in London: the challenges posed by 'lone wolves'
Wednesday’s attack once again underlines the challenges posed by ‘lone wolves’
The attack in London’s Westminster that left five persons dead, including the assailant, was the type of
terror strike that British security officials have been expecting. For almost three years, the threat level from
international terrorism in Britain has been “severe”, meaning an attack is deemed highly likely. This incident was
different from a conventional terror strike, but bore similarity to attacks on European cities in recent years
claimed by the Islamic State. As the Berlin and Nice assailants did last year, the London attacker, Khalid Masood,
turned a vehicle into a lethal weapon by mowing down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and later killed a
police officer with a kitchen knife at the Parliament compound. Britain has one of the best counter-terror police
and intelligence agencies in Europe. Since the 2005 London bombings, the country has remained largely safe. In
the last four years, British officials have reportedly thwarted at least 13 terror plots. The country has one of the
strictest gun control laws, and its borders, unlike countries in the European Union, are not open. Still the
Westminster attack shows how a “lone wolf” without any conventional weapons could bring terror even to the
most guarded zones. This is the security challenge the British establishment, as other governments, face today. If
terror plots are planned by networks that use modern communication systems and amass weapons, the chances
of detecting them are higher. But after the rise of the IS, its followers, mostly radicalised youth, have used different
tactics. They stay off the intelligence radar, wait, and use even commonly used public goods as weapons to kill.
It is still not clear if Masood had communicated with an international terrorist organisation. The IS, that
claimed responsibility for the incident, described him as a “soldier” of the Caliphate who responded to the “call” to
attack Western nations, but stopped short of saying it directed the attack. If such attackers do not have any
contact with terrorist groups, it makes it difficult for intelligence communities to detect them. To its advantage, the
IS has created a narrative where every ‘believer’ has the responsibility to take up weapons against the ‘crusaders’
and their allies. Given that the group also has a dynamic online propaganda system, the challenges of
radicalisation it poses remain. Britain’s immediate response has been commendable. Both political and
community leaders, barring the far-right fringe, sent out a message of unity. But the bigger challenge is to prevent
more such non-conventional attacks, for which security officials need to have better human intelligence and
community relations. Equally important is to deny the far right the opportunity to use such actions by a handful of
individuals and target the majority of British Muslims, exactly what the terrorists want.
Cloak of invisibility
Changes in political funding regulations are a setback to efforts to bring in
transparency
Well before financial year 2017-18 begins, the Lok Sabha has signed off on the Budget with the passage
of the Finance Bill of 2017. It includes multiple amendments proposed by the government that did not figure in
Arun Jaitley’s speech of February 1, either in letter or in spirit. For instance, while the speech devoted 420 words
to proposed measures to improve transparency in electoral funding, amendments have been made to the
Companies Act of 2013 that actually turn the clock back on existing disclosure standards. Till now, companies
could only contribute up to 7.5% of their average net profits in the past three financial years to political parties.
They were required to disclose in their profit and loss accounts the amount of contributions and the names of
political parties to which they were made. The ceiling has now been dropped, paving the way for a firm to deploy
unlimited capital into political coffers irrespective of its own financial and operational health. Companies would
still have to reveal the extent of their financing of parties, but no longer have to name their preferred parties. For
the sake of argument, one could say the 7.5% limit was arbitrary and restricted willing and able corporate donors’
ability to influence political activity. But doing away with the limit makes firms susceptible to funding ‘requests’
from local, regional or national political formations while taking away excuses — such as it being a loss-making
unit, or breaching the funding cap.
This would open up new opportunities in crony capitalism. Pressure could be exerted on a company
awaiting government clearances, or a loan restructuring from public or cooperative sector financiers. Even a
publicly listed company can set up subsidiaries just to fund parties. This removes any pretence of transparency in
the process as the donor will not have to disclose who he paid; the recipient has no such obligation either. It is not
surprising that India Inc. has remained stoically silent so far. This abandonment of the 7.5% requisite comes in
tandem with the proposal to float electoral bonds to give anonymity to political donors. The scheme for such
‘bearer’ bonds is still being worked out with the central bank, but how this will meet the objective of transparency
isn’t clear yet. The push for cashless modes for political contributions sounds worthy, but reducing the ?20,000
limit on cash donations to ?2,000 does nothing to guarantee that monetary muscle power will dissipate from
electoral processes. Instead of, say, a lakh of such donors, a party can now share 10 lakh random names to justify
cash holdings. Transparency is not synonymous with anonymous transactions, unlimited corporate donations,
relaxed disclosure norms and the persistence of cash. The Budget’s promise of “reform to bring about greater
transparency and accountability in political funding, while preventing future generation of black money”, truly
rings hollow.
We suggest students to revise regularly. Follow us on -
1
www.race4bankexams.in
9581233755
https://www.facebook.com/dailycurrentaffairspdf/
We suggest students to learn DVL after reading the ‘The Hindu’ editorial
(25.03.17 - Terror in London & Cloak of invisibility).
Visit https://goo.gl/m0j0zr to read.
25.03.2017
Daily Vocabulary Lesson
To receive DCA & DVL on Whatsapp, add 9581233755 to contacts list and send a message (Plz send ALL) from your Whatsapp number.
WOR D
MEANING
Usage
in Sentence
Assailant (Noun)
WOR D
Amass (Verb)
MEANING
gather together or accumulate over a
period of time.
A person who physically attacks another.
SYNONYMS
attacker, agressor, mugger
ANTONYMS
ally, friend
assemble, collect, compile, garner,
hoard
ANTONYMS divide, disperse, scatter, separate
SYNONYMS
SENTENCE It also appears the assailant was
wearing a jacket the night of the
assault.
Translation (T)
(H) vkØe.kdkjh
Usage
in Sentence
SENTENCE He amassed a fortune estimated at
close to ` 100 crores.
Translation
(T)
(H) bdðk djuk] tek djuk
WOR D
Conventional (Adjective)
MEANING
based on or in accordance with what is
generally done or believed.
common, normal, regular, traditional,
typical
ANTONYMS abnormal, different, extraordinary,
irregular, rare, uncommon, unusual
SENTENCE He is very much conventional in his
ideas.
WOR D
Susceptible (Adjective)
MEANING
likely or liable to be influenced or harmed
by a particular thing.
SYNONYMS
Usage
in Sentence
Translation
affected, inclined, liable, prone, receptive,
vulnerable
ANTONYMS unlikely, unresponsive, unsusceptible, resisting
SYNONYMS
Usage
in Sentence
SENTENCE Patients with liver disease may be
susceptible to infection.
(T)
(H) ikjEifjd
Translation
(T)
(H) vklkuh ls izHkkfor gksus okyk] Hkkoqd
WOR D
Lethal (Adjective)
MEANING
sufficient to cause death, very harmful or
destructive
deadly, dangerous, destructive, fatal,
devastating, malignant, mortal,
noxious, pernicious, virulent
ANTONYMS harmless, helpful, life-giving, healthy,
wholesome
SENTENCE It is a lethal drug.
WOR D
Stoical (Adjective)
MEANING
enduring pain and hardship without
showing one's feelings or complaining.
SYNONYMS
Usage
in Sentence
Translation (T)
(H) gkfudkjd]
enduring, impassive, imperturbable,
forebearing
ANTONYMS anxious, depressed, stressed, upset
SYNONYMS
Usage
in Sentence
SENTENCE He is stoical and has a pretty high
pain threshold.
Translation
?kkrd
(T)
(H) Hkkoghu
WOR D
Thwart (Verb)
WOR D
Dissipate (Verb)
MEANING
prevent (some one) from accomplishing
something.
MEANING
(1) disappear or cause to disappear
(2) waste or fritter away (money, energy
or resources)
SYNONYMS
(1) vanish, dissolve, dispel, disperse, evaporate
ANTONYMS
(1) appear, garner, gather, collect
stop, hinder, circumvent, counter, foil,
obstruct
ANTONYMS abet, aid, allow, assist, encourage, facilitate
SYNONYMS
Usage
in Sentence
SENTENCE The police are executing a plan to
thwart terrorist plot in city.
(T)
Translation
(H) jksduk] O;FkZ dj nsuk
Usage
in Sentence
SENTENCE The concern she had felt for him had
wholly dissipated.
Translation
(T)
(H) nwj gkstkuk
We suggest students to revise regularly. Follow us on -
1
www.race4bankexams.in
9581233755
https://www.facebook.com/dailycurrentaffairspdf/