Reign of Rajendra Chola. Naval campaign against Sri Vijaya kingdom. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Reign of Rajendra Chola. Naval campaign against Sri Vijaya kingdom.

Answer: 1014-1044

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Reign of Rajendra Chola. Naval campaign against Sri Vijaya kingdom.....

QA->Who Chola king fought against the Shailendia king of Shri Vijaya and defeated him?....

QA->Who Chola king fought against the Shailendia king of Shri Vijaya and defeated him ?....

QA->Which place is known as Rajendra Chola Pattanam?....

QA->The Italian traveler visited Vijaya Nagar during the reign of Devaraya I:?....

MCQ-> Read the passage below and choose the most appropriate answer for the questions that follow. Passage I one pictured a woman holding an hourglass next to the words: "Beauty has no age limit. Fertility does." Another portrayed a pair of baby shoes wrapped in a ribbon of the Italian flag. Yet another showed a man holding a half-burned cigarette: "Don't let your sperm go up in smoke" it read. They were part of a government effort to promote "Fertility Day" on Sept. 22? a campaign intended to encourage Italians to have more babies. Instead, the ads set off a furore, were denounced as being offensive, and within days were withdraw. What they did succeed in doing, however, was to ignite a deeper and lasting debate about why it is that Italy has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, and what can be done about it. The problem is not a lack of desire to have children, critics of the campaign say, but rather the lack of meaningful support provided by the government and many employers in a country where the family remains the primary source of child care. Many working women, without an extended family to care for a child, face a dilemma, as private child care is expensive. Some also worry that their job security maybe undermined by missing workdays because of child care issues. Many companies do not offer flexible hours for working mothers.Not surprisingly. Italy's long slowdown in childbirth has coincided with its recent economic slump. But Italian families have been shrinking for decades. In 2015, 488,000 babies were born in Italy, the fewest since the country first unified in 1861. It has one of the lowest birthrates in Europe, with 1.37 children per woman, compared with a European average of 1.6, according to Eurostat figures. By contrast, in France, the economy has been flat, too, but a family-oriented system provides a far more generous social safety net that includes day care and subsidies for families to have children. There, women have two children each on average. The Ministry of Health began the fertility campaign on Aug. 31 with a group of online advertisements and a hashtag on Twitter. The goal was to publicize a series of public meetings on Fertility Day and encourage Italians to have more children. Even Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, whose own health minister started the campaign distanced himself from the ads in a radio interview. Under Mr. Renzi, Italy's government has p families with a so-called baby bonus of 80 to 160 euros, or about $90 to $180, for low- and middle-income households. and it has approved labor laws giving more flexibility on parental leave. But Italy allocates only 1 percent of its gross domestic product to social protection benefits — half the European average. One child out of three here is at risk of relative poverty.Italy's health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, responding on Facebook, wrote that the Fertility Day, campaign was not a "call to reproduction" but a day to discuss "the fertility issues that 15 percent of Italians deal with." She promptly cancelled the campaign. "I am saddened that the launch of the advertising campaign misled many people,"Ms.Lorenzine said. "I withdrew it to change it."Which one of the following sentences is inaccurate based on all the facts detailed in the passage?
...

MCQ-> The persistent patterns in the way nations fight reflect their cultural and historical traditions and deeply rooted attitudes that collectively make up their strategic culture. These patterns provide insights that go beyond what can be learnt just by comparing armaments and divisions. In the Vietnam War, the strategic tradition of the United States called for forcing the enemy to fight a massed battle in an open area, where superior American weapons would prevail. The United States was trying to re-fight World War II in the jungles of Southeast Asia, against an enemy with no intention of doing so. Some British military historians describe the Asian way of war as one of indirect attacks, avoiding frontal attacks meant to overpower an opponent. This traces back to Asian history and geography: the great distances and harsh terrain have often made it difficult to execute the sort of open-field clashes allowed by the flat terrain and relatively compact size of Europe. A very different strategic tradition arose in Asia. The bow and arrow were metaphors for an Eastern way of war. By its nature, the arrow is an indirect weapon. Fired from a distance of hundreds of yards, it does not necessitate immediate physical contact with the enemy. Thus, it can be fired from hidden positions. When fired from behind a ridge, the barrage seems to come out of nowhere, taking the enemy by surprise. The tradition of this kind of fighting is captured in the classical strategic writings of the East. The 2,000 years' worth of Chinese writings on war constitutes the most subtle writings on the subject in any language. Not until Clausewitz, did the West produce a strategic theorist to match the sophistication of Sun-tzu, whose Art of War was written 2,300 years earlier. In Sun-tzu and other Chinese writings, the highest achievement of arms is to defeat an adversary without fighting. He wrote: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." Actual combat is just one among many means towards the goal of subduing an adversary. War contains too many surprises to be a first resort. It can lead to ruinous losses, as has been seen time and again. It can have the unwanted effect of inspiring heroic efforts in an enemy, as the United States learned in Vietnam, and as the Japanese found out after Pearl Harbor. Aware of the uncertainties of a military campaign, Sun-tzu advocated war only after the most thorough preparations. Even then it should be quick and clean. Ideally, the army is just an instrument to deal the final blow to an enemy already weakened by isolation, poor morale, and disunity. Ever since Sun-tzu, the Chinese have been seen as masters of subtlety who take measured actions to manipulate an adversary without his knowledge. The dividing line between war and peace can be obscure. Low-level violence often is the backdrop to a larger strategic campaign. The unwitting victim, focused on the day-to-day events, never realizes what's happening to him until it's too late. History holds many examples. The Viet Cong lured French and U.S. infantry deep into the jungle, weakening their morale over several years. The mobile army of the United States was designed to fight on the plains of Europe, where it could quickly move unhindered from one spot to the next. The jungle did more than make quick movement impossible; broken down into smaller units and scattered in isolated bases, US forces were deprived of the feeling of support and protection that ordinarily comes from being part of a big army. The isolation of U.S. troops in Vietnam was not just a logistical detail, something that could be overcome by, for instance, bringing in reinforcements by helicopter. In a big army reinforcements are readily available. It was Napoleon who realized the extraordinary effects on morale that come from being part of a larger formation. Just the knowledge of it lowers the soldier's fear and increases his aggressiveness. In the jungle and on isolated bases, this feeling was removed. The thick vegetation slowed down the reinforcements and made it difficult to find stranded units. Soldiers felt they were on their own. More important, by altering the way the war was fought, the Viet Cong stripped the United States of its belief in the inevitability of victory, as it had done to the French before them. Morale was high when these armies first went to Vietnam. Only after many years of debilitating and demoralizing fighting did Hanoi launch its decisive attacks, at Dienbienphu in 1954 and against Saigon in 1975. It should be recalled that in the final push to victory the North Vietnamese abandoned their jungle guerrilla tactics completely, committing their entire army of twenty divisions to pushing the South Vietnamese into collapse. This final battle, with the enemy's army all in one place, was the one that the United States had desperately wanted to fight in 1965. When it did come out into the open in 1975, Washington had already withdrawn its forces and there was no possibility of re-intervention. The Japanese early in World War II used a modern form of the indirect attack, one that relied on stealth and surprise for its effect. At Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, and in Southeast Asia, stealth and surprise were attained by sailing under radio silence so that the navy's movements could not be tracked. Moving troops aboard ships into Southeast Asia made it appear that the Japanese army was also "invisible." Attacks against Hawaii and Singapore seemed, to the American and British defenders, to come from nowhere. In Indonesia and the Philippines the Japanese attack was even faster than the German blitz against France in the West. The greatest military surprises in American history have all been in Asia. Surely there is something going on here beyond the purely technical difficulties of detecting enemy movements. Pearl Harbor, the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the Tet offensive in Vietnam all came out of a tradition of surprise and stealth. U.S. technical intelligence – the location of enemy units and their movements was greatly improved after each surprise, but with no noticeable improvement in the American ability to foresee or prepare what would happen next. There is a cultural divide here, not just a technical one. Even when it was possible to track an army with intelligence satellites, as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel, surprise was achieved. The United States was stunned by Iraq's attack on Kuwait even though it had satellite pictures of Iraqi troops massing at the border. The exception that proves the point that cultural differences obscure the West's understanding of Asian behavior was the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. This was fully anticipated and understood in advance. There was no surprise because the United States understood Moscow's worldview and thinking. It could anticipate Soviet action almost as well as the Soviets themselves, because the Soviet Union was really a Western country. The difference between the Eastern and the Western way of war is striking. The West's great strategic writer, Clausewitz, linked war to politics, as did Sun-tzu. Both were opponents of militarism, of turning war over to the generals. But there all similarity ends. Clausewitz wrote that the way to achieve a larger political purpose is through destruction of the enemy's army. After observing Napoleon conquer Europe by smashing enemy armies to bits, Clausewitz made his famous remark in On War (1932) that combat is the continuation of politics by violent means. Morale and unity are important, but they should be harnessed for the ultimate battle. If the Eastern way of war is embodied by the stealthy archer, the metaphorical Western counterpart is the swordsman charging forward, seeking a decisive showdown, eager to administer the blow that will obliterate the enemy once and for all. In this view, war proceeds along a fixed course and occupies a finite extent of time, like a play in three acts with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The end, the final scene, decides the issue for good. When things don't work out quite this way, the Western military mind feels tremendous frustration. Sun-tzu's great disciples, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, are respected in Asia for their clever use of indirection and deception to achieve an advantage over stronger adversaries. But in the West their approach is seen as underhanded and devious. To the American strategic mind, the Viet Cong guerrilla did not fight fairly. He should have come out into the open and fought like a man, instead of hiding in the jungle and sneaking around like a cat in the night. According to the author, the main reason for the U.S. losing the Vietnam war was
...

MCQ->One of the following Chola rulers, forced the Sri Vijaya empire of South-East Asia to accept his Suzerainty...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.Long ago, the country of Gandhara was ruled by a just and good king Vidyadhara. His subjects were very happy, but as the king grew older, everyone grew more and more worried because the king did not have any children who could take over the kingdom after him. The king was an avid gardener. He spent a lot of time tending to his garden. planting the finest flowers. fruit trees and vegetables. One day. after he finished working in his garden, he proclaimed, ‘I will distribute some seeds to all the children in the kingdom. The one who grows the biggest, healthiest plant within three months will become the price or the princess'. The next day there was a long queue of anxious parents and children outside the palace. Everyone was eager to get a seed arid grow the best plant. Pingala, a poor farmer’s son. was among the children. Like the king, he too was fond of gardening and grew beautiful plants in his backyard. He took the seed from the king and planted it in a pot with great care. Some weeks passed and he plied it with water and manure. but the plant did not appear. Pingala tried changing the soil and transferred the seed to another pot, but even by the end of three months nothing appeared. At last the day came when all the children had to go to the king to show the plant they had grown. They went walking to the palace dressed in their best, holding beautiful plants in their hands. Only Pingala stood sadly, watching them go by. Pingala’s father had watched his son working hard with the seed and lelt sorry for him. ‘Why don’t you go to the king with your empty pot ?’ he suggested. At least he will know you tried your best So Pingala too wore his best suit and joined the others outside the palace, holding his empty pot in his hand and ignoring the laughter around him. Soon the king arrived and began his inspection, The pots held flowers of different shades, beautiful and healthy. but the king did not look happy. At the end of the queue stood Pingala, and when the king reached him, he stopped in surprise. ‘My son, why have you come with an empty pot ? Could you not grow anything? Pingala looked down and said, ‘Forgive me, your highness. I tried my best, I gave it the best soil and manure I had, but the plant would not grow.’ Now the king’s face broke into a smile. He enveloped Pingala in his arms and announced, 'This boy truly deserves to be crowned the prince! I had given everyone roasted seeds, which would never grow. I wanted to see which child was the most honest one, and would admit he or she would not be able to grow anything. Only this young boy told the truth. I am sure he will rule this kingdom one day with truth and honesty'. And indeed that was what happened. When the king grew old and died. Pingala, who had learnt everything from him, came to the throne and ruled Gandhara justly for many years.Why did the king distribute seeds to all the children in his kingdom ?
...

MCQ-> The greatest flourishing of northern Indian culture, art, and imperial strength undoubtedly took place during the reign of the Mughal monarchs of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Mughals were Central Asian descendents of the great Mongol warriors Ghengis Khan and Timur (Tamerlane), whose hordes of cavalry swept across the Eurasian steppe in the 13th and 14th centuries, conquering everything between Beijing and Budapest. But by the turn of the 16th century, the great Mongol empire has splintered: the many royal descendents of Ghengis and Timur fought over the territorial scraps and did their best to hold' on to their own minor Sultanates.One of these Sultans. Babur, was not satisfied with his small kingdom of Ferghana (now in modern-day Kyrgyzstan and eastern Uzbekistan), and he tried and tried again to permanently reconquer Timur's greatest prize, Samarkand. He never succeeded. So instead, Babur turned his attention south to the Sultanate of Delhi in northern India. which had been ruled successively by five dynasties of Muslim warriors from Afghanistan since the late It century. As history would show, Babur's campaign against the Delhi Sultanate catalyzed the foundation of one of the greatest dynasties in the history of South Asia : the Mughal Empire.The mughals can trace their ancestry to
...