Who is the winner of the third Indian Council for cultural Relations (ICCR) distinguished indologist award

1. Who is the winner of the third Indian Council for cultural Relations (ICCR) distinguished indologist award - 2017

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Who hasbeen conferred with the second ICCR ‘Distinguished Indologist’ Award bt thePresident of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee on December 1, 2016 at a functionheld at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi ?....

QA->Who is the first indian Asian Tennis Champion, WTA champion, Third round winner in Grand Slam Tournament, Grand slam tournament winner Match winner in U.S. open, Youngest awardee of Padamshree ?....

QA->The first Asian Tennis Champion, WTA champion, Third round winner in Grand Slam Tournament, Grand slam tournament winner Match winner in U.S. open, Youngest awardee of Padamshree ?....

QA->Where is Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations situated ?....

QA->Where is Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations....

MCQ->Who is the winner of the third Indian Council for cultural Relations (ICCR) distinguished indologist award - 2017....

MCQ->Who will be honoured with the 2016 Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) "Distinguished Indologist" Award?....

MCQ-> A passage is given with five questions following it. Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given four alternatives. Culture is defined as a people’s way of life. It entails how they dress, how they speak, the type of food they eat, the manner in which they worship, and their art among many other things. Indian culture, therefore, is the Indian’s way of life. Because of the population diversity, there is immense variety in Indian culture. The Indian culture is a blend of various cultures in the world. India had an urban civilization even during the Bronze age. The Indus Valley Civilization (Harappan Civilization) dates back to 3300 BC - 1300 BC. Distinct cultures different from each other co-exist together in a single country. Thus, in India, there is unity amidst vast cultural diversity. The way people live in India is reflected in its culture. Unity in Diversity: India is a land of unity in diversity where people of different sects, caste and religion live together. India is also called the land of unity in diversity as different groups of people co-operate with each other to live in a single society. Unity in diversity has alo become the strength of India. Secularism: The word secularism means equality, impartiality, etc, towards all religion. India is a secular country, which means, equal treatment of all the religions present in India. Traditions: traditional cultural values 1) Touching feet of elders: Indian tradition has rich cultural values. In India, younger show great respect to their elders. They touch the feet of their elders daily after waking up and especially on the festive occasionally on the festive occasions or before starting an important work. 2) Namaste: The gesture of the Namaste greeting is also part of the Indian culture. People greet each other by saying “Namaste” while joining their hands. “Namaste means “Hello”. (Also read. The meaning of Namaste here.) 3) Most Indians have a habit of shaking their heads while talking.If I am a cultural, well-behaved Indian, what won’t do ?
....

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->Read the following passage carefully and choose the most appropriate answer to the question out of the four alternatives. Translation is of immense importance today. With rapid commercialization, the narrow barriers between nations are fast disappearing. In the past, there used to be practically no communication amongst nations. The modern world, however, is no longer divided into water-tight compartments. We are heading towards one world, thanks to development in the fields of communication among nations today. Translation forges bonds of unity amongst people who speak different languages. Even if we do not know a particular language or the literature of a particular nation, we can know its richness and the depth of its ideas through translation. Translation also helps in understanding the rich cultural heritage of a nation. Thus a multi-lingual person has a multi-focal view of the world. Translation also serves as a mode of cultural excahnge in a multi-lingual country. It plays a pivotal role in the evolution of a pluralistic national identity. The achievement of translation is both the globalisation of culture and the promotion of intra and inter-cultural bonding. One may appreciate and enjoy through translation the plays of Shakespeare even if one does not know the English language. One may also know the rich world of Homer, Virgil, Dante, Milton, Dickens, Hardy, Leo Tolstoy, Zola and Munshi Prem Chand through translation. Translation responds to our intellectual, cultural and spiritual needs. It is necessary for information and for the exchange of ideas. Translation, which has hitherto been neglected and marginalized, has assumed importance with rapid globalization. It is now considered an art which requires mastery and perfection. A good translator is able to do away with superficiality and has a clear understanding of the text to be translated. He should have mastery over the subtle nuances of the language from which he is translating. Translating a passage of one language into another literally is not only impossible but would also result in incorrect grammar and syntax. What should be the primary concern while translating a passage from one language into another?....