The Indian Football team made its first appearance at Olympics in? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The Indian Football team made its first appearance at Olympics in?

Answer: 1948

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The Indian Football team made its first appearance at Olympics in?....

QA->The Indian Football team made its first appearance at Olympics in ?....

QA->Former national football team captain who has been appointed as the advisor for overall issues related to football in India by the All India Football Federation?....

QA->Who willbecome the first tennis player in the world to have 7th appearance in Olympics?....

QA->Which sports regained its place in the Olympics Games 2020 and 2024 after a recent voting by the International Olympics Committee members?....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below :A. B, C. D, F, G and H are seven football players each playing for a different team. viz. Green.- Red and Blue, with at least two of them in each of these teams. Each of them likes a fruit, viz. Apple. Guava. Banana. Orange, Mango. Papaya and Watermelon, not necessarily in the same order. B plays with F in team Blue and he likes Mango. None of those who play for either team Red or team Green likes either Guava or Banana. D plays with only the one who likes Watermelon. G likes Papaya and he plays in team Red. The one who likes Orange does not play in team Red. 1-1 likes Watermelon and he plays for team Green. A likes Apple and he plays for team Red. C does not like Guava.Which of the following players play for team Red ?
...

MCQ-> K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, U and W are the only ten members in a department. There is a proposal to form a team from within the members of the department, subject to the following conditions:[list=1][*] A team must include exactly one among P,R and S.[*] A team must include either M or Q, but not both.[*] If a team includes K, then it must also include L, and vice versa.[*] If a team includes one among S, U and W, then it should also include the other two.[*] L and N cannot be members of the same team.[*] L and U cannot be members of the same team.[/list]The size of a team is defined as the number of members in the team.What could be the size of a team that includes K?
...

MCQ-> There are 21 employees working in a division, out of whom 10 are special-skilled employees (SE) and the remaining are regular-skilled employees (RE). During the next five months, the division has to complete five projects every month. Out of the 25 projects, 5 projects are "challenging", while the remaining ones are "standard". Each of the challenging projects has to be completed in different months. Every month, five teams — T1 T2, T3, T4 and T5, work on one project each. T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 are allotted the challenging project in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth month, respectively. The team assigned the challenging project has one more employee than the rest. In the first month, T1 has one more SE than T2, T2 has one more SE than T3, T 3 has one more SE than T4, and T4 has one more SE than T5. Between two successive months, the composition of the teams changes as follows: a. The team allotted the challenging project, gets two SE from the team which was allotted the challenging project in the previous month. In exchange, one RE is shifted from the former team to the latter team. b. After the above exchange, if T1 has any SE and T5 has any RE, then one SE is shifted from T1 to T5, and one RE is shifted from T5 to T1. Also, if T2 has any SE and T4 has any RE, then one SE is shifted from T2 to T4, and one RE is shifted from T4 to T2. Each standard project has a total of 100 credit points, while each challenging project has 200 credit points. The credit points are equally shared between the employees included in that team.The number of times in which the composition of team T2 and the number of times in which composition of team T4 remained unchanged in two successive months are:
...

MCQ-> Choose the best answer for each question.The production of histories of India has become very frequent in recent years and may well call for some explanation. Why so many and why this one in particular? The reason is a two-fold one: changes in the Indian scene requiring a re-interpretation of the facts and changes in attitudes of historians about the essential elements of Indian history. These two considerations are in addition to the normal fact of fresh information, whether in the form of archeological discoveries throwing fresh light on an obscure period or culture, or the revelations caused by the opening of archives or the release of private papers. The changes in the Indian scene are too obvious to need emphasis. Only two generations ago British rule seemed to most Indian as well as British observers likely to extend into an indefinite future; now there is a teenage generation which knows nothing of it. Changes in the attitudes of historians have occurred everywhere, changes in attitudes to the content of the subject as well as to particular countries, but in India there have been some special features. Prior to the British, Indian historiographers were mostly Muslims, who relied, as in the case of Sayyid Ghulam Hussain, on their own recollection of events and on information from friends and men of affairs. Only a few like Abu’l Fazl had access to official papers. These were personal narratives of events, varying in value with the nature of the writer. The early British writers were officials. In the 18th century they were concerned with some aspect of Company policy, or like Robert Orme in his Military Transactions gave a straight narrative in what was essentially a continuation of the Muslim tradition. In the early 119th century the writers were still, with two notable exceptions, officials, but they were now engaged in chronicling, in varying moods of zest, pride, and awe, the rise of the British power in India to supremacy. The two exceptions were James Mill, with his critical attitude to the Company and John Marchman, the Baptist missionary. But they, like the officials, were anglo-centric in their attitude, so that the history of modern India in their hands came to be the history of the rise of the British in India.The official school dominated the writing of Indian history until we get the first professional historian’s approach. Ramsay Muir and P. E. Roberts in England and H. H. Dodwell in India. Then Indian historians trained in the English school joined in, of whom the most distinguished was Sir Jadunath Sarkar and the other notable writers: Surendranath Sen, Dr Radhakumud Mukherji, and Professor Nilakanta Sastri. They, it may be said, restored India to Indian history, but their bias was mainly political. Finally have come the nationalists who range from those who can find nothing good or true in the British to sophisticated historical philosophers like K. M. Panikker.Along the types of historians with their varying bias have gone changes in the attitude to the content of Indian history. Here Indian historians have been influenced both by their local situation and by changes of thought elsewhere. It is this field that this work can claim some attention since it seeks to break new ground, or perhaps to deepen a freshly turned furrow in the field of Indian history. The early official historians were content with the glamour and drama of political history from Plassey to the Mutiny, from Dupleix to the Sikhs. But when the raj was settled down, glamour departed from politics, and they turned to the less glorious but more solid ground of administration. Not how India was conquered but how it was governed was the theme of this school of historians. It found its archpriest in H. H. Dodwell, its priestess in Dame Lilian Penson, and its chief shrine in the Volume VI of the Cambridge History of India. Meanwhile, in Britain other currents were moving, which led historical study into the economic and social fields. R. C. Dutt entered the first of these currents with his Economic History of India to be followed more recently by the whole group of Indian economic historians. W. E. Moreland extended these studies to the Mughal Period. Social history is now being increasingly studied and there is also of course a school of nationalist historians who see modern Indian history in terms of the rise and the fulfillment of the national movement.All these approaches have value, but all share in the quality of being compartmental. It is not enough to remove political history from its pedestal of being the only kind of history worth having if it is merely to put other types of history in its place. Too exclusive an attention to economic, social, or administrative history can be as sterile and misleading as too much concentration on politics. A whole subject needs a whole treatment for understanding. A historian must dissect his subject into its elements and then fuse them together again into an integrated whole. The true history of a country must contain all the features just cited but must present them as parts of a single consistent theme.Which of the following may be the closest in meaning to the statement ‘restored India to Indian history’?
...

MCQ-> Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows:

Notes: • The team that scores more goals than it concedes wins the match, while if both the teams score the same no. of goals, the match is declared drawn. • Ina match played between Team X and Team Y, if team X scores 1 and concedes none. then the score line would read: Team X — Team Y (1-0)Which of the following matches are yet to be played?
...