The ten-year-old Indian boy who in December 2007 emerged as the youngest champion in the history of Junior Mastermind a BBC Quiz show is__

1. The ten-year-old Indian boy who in December 2007 emerged as the youngest champion in the history of Junior Mastermind a BBC Quiz show is___

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

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->Which18-year old F1 driver created history by winning the Spanish Formula 1 GrandPrix title on 15 May 2016 and thus becoming the youngest in the history to doso?....

QA->Name the 18-year-old Indian boy in the UAE who has become the youngest affiliate with a global body for professional accountants?....

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->Thirteen year old boy who made a history in school cricket on December 22, 2010 when he scored mammoth 498 runs in Harris Shield tournament in Mumbai?....

MCQ->The ten-year-old Indian boy who in December 2007 emerged as the youngest champion in the history of Junior Mastermind a BBC Quiz show is___....

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->Two boys are playing on a ground. Both the boys are less than 10 years old. Age of the younger boy is equal to the cube root of the product of the age of the two boys. If we place the digit representing the age of the younger boy to the left of the digit representing the age of the elder boy, we get the age of father of the younger boy. Similarly, if we place the digit representing the age of the elder boy to the left of the digit representing the age of the younger boy and divide the figure by 2, we get the age of mother of the younger boy. The mother of the younger boy is younger to his father by 3 years. Then, what is the age of the younger boy?....

MCQ-> A survey of 200 people in a community who watched at least one of the three channels — BBC, CNN and DD — showed that 80% of the people watched DD, 22% watched BBC, and 15% watched CNN.If 5% of people watched DD and CNN, 10% watched DD and BBC, then what percentage of people watched BBC and CNN only?
....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully to answer the given questions.This data is regarding number of Junior Coliege students, Graduate students and Post-Graduate students (PG) only, studying in colleges A, B, C and D. The respective ratio between the total number of students studying in the Colleges A, B, C and D is 3 : 5 : 2 : 5. In College A, 40% of the total number of students are Junior College students. Out of the remaining, the respective ratio between the number of Graduate students and number of PG students is 5 : 4. In College B, $${2 \over 5}$$th of the total number of students are Junior College students. Out of the remaining, the respective ratio between the number of Graduate students and number of PG students is 5 : 3. In College C, 50% of the total number of students are Junior College students. Out of the remaining, $${5 \over 8}$$th are Graduate students and the remaining are PG students.In College D, 35% of the total number of students are Graduate students,$$ {8 \over {13}}$$th of the remaining students are Junior College students and the rest 1500 are PG students.What is the respective ratio between the total number of graduate students in College A and the total number of Graduate students in College B?
....