Dr. M. S. Swaminathan distinguished himself in which field? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Dr. M. S. Swaminathan distinguished himself in which field?

Answer: Agriculture

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Dr. M. S. Swaminathan distinguished himself in which field?....

QA->Charles Correa has distinguished himself in which field?....

QA->In which field ‘Aachan Maharaj’ has distinguished himself?....

QA->Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi has distinguished herself in which field?....

QA->Michael Jackson was a distinguished personality in which field?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it Certain words/phrases have printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time there lived a vicious king Raja Shankara short-tempered and temperamental “God I am” he said to his image as he started into the mirror everyday many times a day He was obsessed with himself He loved no one but himself He was blinded towards the injustice in his kingdom because he had little time for his subjects He wasted most of his time in pouring milk and honey over himself Interruption in his possessed life was dealt with stern reprimanding and sometimes on petty issues he would behead his servants Provoked by his evil advisor Twishar he went on with his self-indulged life unaware of the plot his very devoted advisor was planning.A plot to dethrone the king rule the kingdom with his wicked ways only to harness wealth and the reputation of a King. One morning the king was on his usual morning horseback rounds but returned to the palace with an intense look on his face.He locked himself inside his palatial room only to unlock it at sundown.Just as the doors cracked open and Raja Shankara emerged from it his wife rushed to embrace him. She feared a damaging incident had occurred. The King spoke seldom that day and awoke the next day to make a proclamation to his servants and subjects.The whole kingdom feared what was in store for them from their angry King.But to their surprise he said to all gathered.”From now on I will be a different kings.A softer and a patient king. True to his words from that day on the king had truly turned on a new leaf he cleaned out the corruption and injustice in a tender manner with punishments aimed to renew the person from within. One fine day his evil advisor gathered courage to ask the reason for his paradigm shift And the king answered.When I went on horseback that morning a month ago, I noticed a dog brutally chasing a cat,The cat managed to sneak into a hole only after the dog bit her leg,maiming her for life.Not far the barked at a farmer who picked up a sharp stone and hit it straight in the dog’s eye.Bleeding profusely the dog yelped in pain.As the farmer walked on he slipped on the edge of the road and broke his head. All this happened in a matter of minutes before me and then I realized that evil begets evil.I thought about it deeply and was ready to give up my worldly life for the betterment of my subjects I wanted to give up evil in me as I did not want evil to encounter me. Sniggering away the immoral advisor thought what a perfect time it was to dethrone the king because the Raja had grown kind hearted and patient and would not endeavour a combat.Thinking how he would plan his attack he stumbled over a step that took him hurling down the remaining steps bringing his stop with a crash He howled in pain only to discover he had broken the bones in both his legs.How can Raja Shankara be described before his transformation ? (A)He was unjust (B)He was preoccupied with himself (C)He was cruel...

MCQ->Dr. M. S. Swaminathan has distinguished himself in which of the following fields?...

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Once upon a time, there lived a washerman in a village. He had a donkey by the name of Udhata. He used to carry loads of clothes to the river bank and back home everyday. The donkey was not satisfied with the food, that was given to him by his master to eat. So he wandered into the nearby fields stealthily and ate the crops growing there. Once, the donkey, while wandering around, happened to meet a fox. Soon, both of them became friends and began to wander together in search of delicious food. One night, the donkey and the fox were eating water-melons in a field. The water- melons were so tasty, that the donkey ate in a large quantity. Having eaten to his appetite, the donkey became so happy that he was compelled by an intense desire to sing. He told the fox that he was in such a good mood that he had to express his happiness in a melodious tone. ‘Don’t be a fool. If you sing, the people sleeping in and around this field will wake up and beat us black and blue with sticks,’ said the fox worriedly. `You are a dull fellow’, the donkey said hearing the words of fox. ‘Singing makes one happy and healthy. No matter what comes. I’ll definitely sing a song.” The fox became worried to see the donkey adamant to sing a song in the midst of the field, while the owner was still sleeping only a little distance away. Seeing his adamance, he said to the donkey, ‘Friend, wait a minute before you start first, let me jump over to the other side of the fence for my safety.’ Saying so the fox jumped over to the other side of the fence without losing a moment. The donkey began in his so-called melodious tone. Hearing, suddenly, a donkey braying in the field, the owner woke up from his sleep. He picked up his stick lying by his side and ran towards the donkey who was still braying happily. The owner of the field looked around and saw the loss caused by the donkey. He became very angry and beat him so ruthlessly that the donkey was physically incapacitated temporarily. He, somehow, managed to drag himself out of the field with great difficulty. The fox looked at the donkey and said in a sympathetic tone, T m sorry to see you in this pitiable condition. I had already warned you, but you didn’t listen to my advice.’ The donkey too realised his folly and hung his head in shame.Why did donkey want to sing ?
...

MCQ-> Every age has its pet contradictions. A few decades back, we used to accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon on the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature. On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animals to decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct. On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.)According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, fearing the dark, and jumping at the sight of a spider are just results of our conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man’s freedom and will not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that “there is no human nature …. Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes himself.” For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards; if we care more for our own children than for other people’s, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but as Libertarian ― meaning that those holding it do not just (like all of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man. One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.A business school led by an existentialist director, wanted to decide on admission policy for its executive MBA program, which requires candidates to possess minimum five years of managerial experience.With respect to the selection process, which of the following statements will be closest to the director’s belief:
...

MCQ-> The painter is now free to paint anything he chooses. There are scarcely any forbidden subjects, and today everybody is prepared o admit that a painting of some fruit can be as important as painting of a hero dying. The Impressionists did as much as anybody to win this previously unheard of freedom for the artist. Yet, by the next generation, painters began to abandon tie subject altogether, and began to paint abstract pictures. Today the majority of pictures painted are abstract.Is there a connection between these two developments? Has art gone abstract because the artist is embarrassed by his freedom? Is it that, because he is free to paint anything, he doesn’t know what to paint? Apologists for abstract art often talk of it as Inc art of maximum freedom. But could this be the freedom of the desert island? It would take too long to answer these questions properly. I believe there is a connection. Many things have encouraged the development of abstract art. Among them has been the artists’ wish to avoid the difficulties of finding subjects when all subjects are equally possible.I raise the matter now because I want to draw attention to the fact that the painter’s choice of a subject is a far more complicated question than it would at first seem. A subject does not start with what is put in front of the easel or with something which the painter happens to remember. A subject starts with the painter deciding he would like to paint such-and-such because for some reason or other he finds it meaningful. A subject begins when the artist selects something for special mention. (What makes it special or meaningful may seem to the artist to be purely visual — its colours or its form.) When the subject has been selected, the function of the painting itself is to communicate and justify the significance of that selection.It is often said today that subject matter is unimportant. But this is only a reaction against the excessively literary and moralistic interpretation of subject matter in the nineteenth century. In truth the subject is literally the beginning and end of a painting. The painting begins with a selection (I will paint this and not everything else in the world); it is finished when that selection is justified (now you can see all that I saw and felt in this and how it is more than merely itself).Thus, for a painting to succeed it is essential that the painter and his public agree about what is significant. The subject may have a personal meaning for the painter or individual spectator; but there must also be the possibility of their agreement on its general meaning. It is at this point that the culture of the society and period in question precedes the artist and his art. Renaissance art would have meant nothing to the Aztecs — and vice versa. If, to some extent, a few intellectuals can appreciate them both today it is because their culture is an historical one: its inspiration is history and therefore it can include within itself, in principle if not in every particular, all known developments to date.When culture is secure and certain of its values, it presents its artists with subjects. The general agreement about what is significant is so well established that the significance of a particular subject accrues and becomes traditional. This is true, for instance, of reeds and water in China, of the nude body in Renaissance, of the animal in Africa. Furthermore in such cultures the artist is unlikely to be a free agent: he will be employed for the sake of particular subjects, and the problem, as we have just described it, will not occur to him.When a culture is in a state of disintegration or transitions the freedom of the artist increases — but the question of subject matter becomes problematic for him: he, himself, has to choose for society. This was at the basis of all the increasing crises in European art during the nineteenth century. It is too often forgotten how any of the art scandals of that time were provoked by the choice of subject (Gericault, Courbet, Daumier, Degas, Lautrec, Van Gogh, etc.).By the end of the nineteenth century there were, roughly speaking, two ways in which the painter could meet this challenge of deciding what to paint and so choosing for society. Either he identified himself with the people and so allowed their lives to dictate his subjects to him or he had to find his subjects within himself as painter. By people I mean everybody except the, bourgeoisie. Many painters did of course work for the bourgeoisie according to their copy-book of approved subjects, but all of them, filling the Salon and the Royal Academy year after year, are now forgotten, buried under the hypocrisy of those they served so sincerely.When a culture is insecure, the painter chooses his subject on the basis of:
...