The Kabini River, is an important tributary of? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The Kabini River, is an important tributary of?

Answer: Kaveri River

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The Kabini River, is an important tributary of?....

QA->The Kabini River; is an important tributary of?....

QA->Kuruva Dweep on the Kabini River is in?....

QA->Amravati; Bhavani; Hemavati and Kabini are tributaries of which river?....

QA->Amravati, Bhavani, Hemavati and Kabini are tributaries of which river?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage:Where is this going?' That is the question at the heart of River of Life, River of Death, as author Victor Mallet travels the length of the Ganges. Beginning at its ice cave source in the Himalayan foothills. he follows the water through the holy confluence at Allahabad. the spindly banks of Varanasi city and onwards to the delta in Bangladesh. where 'in its parting gift to the land. the river spews millions of tons of fertile silt on to the rice fields of Bengal and the mangroves of the Sundarbans.' It is the same question he asks about the treatment of the Ganges. both good and bad. The river leads a double life. being the most worshipped waterway in the world and also one of the most polluted. The Ganges and its tributaries are now subject to sewage pollution that is 'half a million times over the Indian recommended limit for bathing' in places. not to mention the unchecked runoff from heavy metals, fertilizers. carcinogens and the occasional corpse. As Mallet observes. the danger of contamination does not put off the millions of revellers at Kuinbh Mela. It is a Hindu pilgrimage 'thought to be the largest gathering of people anywhere'. described to him as 'a spiritual expo... where you will be talking one moment to a visiting Mumbai businessman and the next to a marijuana-stoned yogi. He suggests the pollution might never deter them. He is told by one bather: 'we do believe that anyone who takes in this water. he becomes pure also. because it is always pure.' There is a collective sense that the spirit of the Ganges is so sacred that she can never be spoiled. He informs the reader in the preface — 'almost everyone knows the problems are real'. His journey down the Ganges is one of investigation rather than discovery. Mallet investigates the potential of the river to become a cradle for antibiotic-resistant infections — or superbugs' — that could be exported to other regions by global travel. He points out that some 450 million people depend on the Ganges water basin for survival, and many more for its religious and cultural importance. The Ganges is a goddess and a mother to everyone from the politician in the north, to the humblest Hindu living in the far south or running a motel in the United States. There is hope. Mallet draws some parallels to clean-ups of the Rhine and the Thames. He points to the design feat of Ktunbh Mela, which as 'a pop-up megacity' for two million pilgrims has better infrastructure and waste treatment than many Indian cities. 'In the minds of both Indians and foreigners. this raises important questions... if the authorities can build infrastructure so efficiently for this short but very large festival why can they not do the same for permanent villages and towns?'Which ONE of the options fills in the blank and completes the statement below correctly? The average believer is of the faith-driven conviction that the river Ganges...

MCQ-> DIRECTIONS for the following questions: These questions are based on the situation given below: A young girl Roopa leaves home with x flowers, goes to the bank of a nearby river. On the bank of the river, there are four places of worship, standing in a row. She dips all the x flowers into the river. The number of flowers doubles. Then she enters the first place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the second place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the third place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the fourth place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. Now she is left with no flowers in hand.If Roopa leaves home with 30 flowers, the number of flowers she offers to each deity is:
...

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
...

MCQ->Which of the following best explain why the lower course of a river is sometimes choked with sediments? The valley of a river is widest in its lower course. The velocity of a river in its lower course is low. The delta sometimes develops in a river's lower course Much of the river water is drawn for irrigation in the lower course. Select the correct answer using the code given below:...

MCQ->Amravati, Bhavani, Hemavati and Kabini are tributaries of which one of the following rivers?...