Who was selected as general secretary of Indian OlympicAssociation in 2014? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who was selected as general secretary of Indian OlympicAssociation in 2014?

Answer: Rajiv Mehta

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Who was selected as general secretary of Indian OlympicAssociation in 2014?....

QA->Who was selected as the president of Indian OlympicAssociation (IOA) in 2014?-....

QA->Former Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary, who has been appointed as the new Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha?....

QA->Secretary Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs who is appointed as Secretary of Ministry of Shipping?....

QA->Each Ex officio Secretary/Implementing Officer of a Grama Panchayat shall furnish to the Secretary a statement of expenditure incurred by him out of the allotment received by him before the……….. of the subsequent month.....

MCQ-> Based on the conditions stated in the passage below, answer the questions that follow.There are three countries, USA, UAE and UK. An exporter can select one country or two countries or all the three countries subject to the conditions below: Condition 1: Both USA and UAE have to be selected. Condition 2: Either USA or UK, but not both have to be selected. Condition 3: UAE can be selected only if UK has been selected. Condition 4: USA can be selected only if UK is selected.How many countries can be selected if no condition is imposed?
...

MCQ->Consider the following statements: 1.Kofi Annan – the UN Secretary General is from Nigeria. 2.Kofi Annan is the first UN Secretary General to be appointed from the ranks of the United Nations staff. 3.Kofi Annan was appointed for a second term to the office of the UN Secretary General. Which of the statements given above are correct?...

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-> Directions for the following three questions: Answer the questions based on the passage below.A group of three or four has to be selected from seven persons. Among the seven are two women: Fiza and Kavita, and five men: Ram, Shyam, David, Peter and Rahim. Ram would not like to be in the group If Shyam is also selected. Shyam and Rahim want to be selected together in the group. Kavita would like to be in the group only if David is also there. David, if selected, would not like Peter in the group. Ram would like to be in the group only if Peter is also there. David insists that Fiza be selected in case he is there in the group.Which of the following is a feasible group of three?
...

MCQ->A king has unflinching loyalty from eight of his ministers M1 to M8, but he has to select only four to make a cabinet committee. He decides to choose these four such that each selected person shares a liking with at least one of the other three selected. The selected persons must also hate at least one of the likings of any of the other three persons selected. M1 likes fishing and smoking, but hates gambling. M2 likes smoking and drinking, but hates fishing. M3 likes gambling, but hates smoking, M4 likes mountaineering, but hates drinking, M5 likes drinking, but hates smoking and mountaineering. M6 likes fishing, but hates smoking and mountaineering. M7 likes gambling and mountaineering, but hates fishing. M8 likes smoking and gambling, but hates mountaineering. Who are the four people selected by the king?...