A historic bronze statue of which Indian was unveiled at theParliament Square in London in March 2015? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. A historic bronze statue of which Indian was unveiled at theParliament Square in London in March 2015?

Answer: Mahatma

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A historic bronze statue of which Indian was unveiled at theParliament Square in London in March 2015?....

QA->The bronze bust of British Indian spy tortured and killed by the Nazis is unveiled by Princess Anne on 8 November 2012 in Gordon Square Gardens, London. Name that British Indian Spy?....

QA->Who unveiled the statue of Ayyankali at Kawadiar square....

QA->Who said that Gandhiji"s March to Dandi "Like the historic March of Ramachandra to Lanka, The march of Gandhi will be Memorable"....

QA->In which country world"s tallest statue of Jesus unveiled on November 21, 2010?....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below:There are five statues - L. M, N, O and P - each of them having different height. Statue L is smaller than only statue M. Statue O is smaller than statue N. Statue O is longer than statue P. The height of the tallest statue is 20 feet. The height of the second smallest statue is 11 feet.What will be the height of statue P?
...

MCQ-> A passage is given with 5 questions following it. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. The flora and fauna of Cubbon Park captures our attention more than anything else. But when you take time to look closely at the statue, you will marvel at its sheer grandeur. Sculpted by Sir Thomas Brock, the 11 feet high marble statue is larger than life. It brings out the personality of Queen Victoria, who had been the Monarch of Great Britain from 1837 till 1901, depicting a rather proud, stern person with pronounced features. In 1906, the statue was unveiled in the city by George Frederick Ernest Albert, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and York, making it stand in all its glory in its 111th year. Even though there is a wealth of history to the statue, and it was made to appear imposing, the busy Bengalureans would probably refer to it as just another landmark. As the workers are busy in discussion on the instructions given to them, life continues as usual in the Park.Queen Victoria ruled Great Britain for how many years?
...

MCQ->The business consulting division of TCS has overseas operations in 3 locations: Singapore, New York and London. The Company has 22 analysts covering Singapore, 28 covering New York and 24 covering London. 6 analysts cover Singapore and New York but not London, 4 analysts cover Singapore and London but not New York, and 8 analysts cover New York and London but not Singapore. If TCS has a total of 42 business analysts covering at least one of the three locations: Singapore, New York and London, then the number of analysts covering New york alone is:...

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->On which day of the week from Monday to Sunday did Arun leave for London ? I.Arun did not leave for London during the weekend II.Arun’s brother left for London on Friday two days after Arun left for London...